Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Leicester Corporation Bill [Lords],

Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],

Brixham Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],

Ascot District Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Southport Corporation Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any further information as to the position in China?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I have no information of any important developments since the reply which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich West (Sir K. Wood) on 30th June.

Mr. DAY: Has my right hon. Friend had any report at all with regard to the British women missionaries who have been captured in China in the past week?

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Communists at Tochow have seized a British tow-launch, and that two British missionaries,
Miss Nettleton and Miss Harrison, have been captured at Chungan; and what action is being taken?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. A British tug was seized at Yochow on 3rd July. Though seriously damaged by fire, it was subsequently recovered. The two lady missionaries were captured by brigands in the interior of Fukien. Representations have been made to the provincial authorities and to the Government at Nanking.

Mr. WARDLAW - MILNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the safety of these ladies?

Mr. HENDERSON: I did have a communication that they were safe but I should require notice before I could give information.

Mr. DAY: Is the statement in the question that the brigands were Communists correct?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have no information.

Sir BASIL PETO: Were there armed guards on the tow launches?

Mr. HENDERSON: Not that I am aware of.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

EUROPEAN FEDERAL UNION.

Mr. MANDER: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he proposes to request that the scheme of M. Briand for a United States of Europe should be placed upon the agenda of the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva in September in order that a discussion of this international proposal may take place?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The best method of securing a discussion of Monsieur Briand's proposals, including the possibility of adopting the method indicated by the hon. Member, is at present under consideration.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Has the right hon. Gentleman informed M. Briand that it is hoped at the forthcoming Imperial Conference to arrange for a fiscal union of the United States, of the British Empire?

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate to the House the reply which His Majesty's Government propose to address to M. Briand's circular note?

Mr. HENDERSON: That reply is not decided upon. If the right hon. Gentleman will put a question down later, I will see if that can be done.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

Mr. MANDER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is able to say whether the Argentine Republic intends to be fully represented at the meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva in September; and if he will take steps to express to the Government of that country that His Majesty's Government would welcome the reappearance of a full Argentine delegation?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have no information as to the intentions of the Argentine Government in regard to their representation at the forthcoming Assembly of the League of Nations. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on 5th February, in which I said that I was confident that Argentina did not need to be assured of the satisfaction with which His Majesty's Government and all other Members of the League would welcome the full co-operation of Argentina in the work of the League.

DISARMAMENT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what stage the preparations have reached for the proposed World Disarmament Conference next year; when and where it will meet; and what steps he proposes to take at the Assembly of the League of Nations this year to further the holding of this conference?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: As my hon. and gallant Friend is probably aware, the meeting of the Preparatory Disarmament Commission has been definitely fixed for 3rd November next. It is hoped that this will prove the final meeting of the Commission, and that the Council of the League of Nations will thereafter be able to suggest a date for the summoning of
the General Disarmament Conference. No further action can, therefore, be taken at this stage.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate a meeting next year as originally planned?

Mr. HENDERSON: That will largely depend on the conclusions reached by the Preparatory Commission.

CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Mr. MANDER: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any communications, favourable or otherwise, from foreign countries with reference to the proposed building of the Channel Tunnel?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir.

Mr. MANDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the Prime Minister's statement that the existence of the Tunnel would make diplomatic work less easy, and can he state the reasons for that statement?

Mr. HENDERSON: I believe that is an entirely different question. If the hon. Member wants the Prime Minister's reasons, he had better ask him for them.

RUSSIA (DEBTS, CLAIMS AND COUNTER-CLAIMS).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the negotiations with the Soviet Government on the question of claims and counter-claims during the Parliamentary Recess; and whether he will give an assurance that any agreement which may be arrived at will not be ratified until Parliament has been given an opportunity of considering it?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The procedure in these negotiations is now under discussion between the two Governments, and I hope to be able to make a definite statement on Monday next. The Protocol of 3rd October, 1929, provides that all agreements resulting from the negotiations shall take the form of a treaty, or treaties. The treaty, or treaties, will be submitted to Parliament before ratification.

EGYPT.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mahran Ebeid Bey and Ahmed Maher Bey, two members of the delegation which recently negotiated with His Majesty's Government regarding Egypt, have again left Egypt for this country; if so, whether they are coming with the object of reopening negotiations or discussing with His Majesty's Government the situation in Egypt; and whether their visit has been arranged upon the invitation of or with the knowledge of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last part in the negative. I understand that the gentlemen referred to in the question are coming to attend the meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the House the latest information as to the situation in Egypt, and particularly whether any riots or disorders have occurred resulting in attacks upon British or other Europeans?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am unable to amplify the reports of recent events which have appeared in the Press, but I have no information that these events have involved any attacks upon British or other Europeans.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: May we take it that there is no truth in the report that Italian subjects have been injured?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have no information to lead me to think any such thing.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Are not these riots the direct result of the negotiations initiated by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. THURTLE: Is the British Government adopting an attitude of strict neutrality in regard to the present crisis in Egypt?

Mr. HENDERSON: I think I have already answered more than one question declaring that our position was strictly neutral.

MEXICO (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs whether he has any information as to the proposals made on 27th June, and subsequent dates, by the Mexican Minister of Finance, Montes de Oca, to the International Committee of Bankers in relation to the default since 1914 by the Mexican Government on its obligations to holders of Mexican Government securities?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: As these negotiations are still proceeding, there is no information that I can give the hon. Member at present.

Mr. SAMUEL: If I put down a question in a week or 10 days, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give the information?

Mr. HENDERSON: If the hon. Gentleman puts down a question, I will do the best I can to get information, but we are not in control of the proceedings.

Mr. SAMUEL: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will inquire of the Mexican Minister whether guarantees will be given to the representatives of the creditors of Mexico to ensure that any agreement arrived at between the Mexican Government and the International Committee of Bankers to terminate the 16 years' default by the Mexican Government in its obligations shall be carried out without interruption or revision except by consent of the creditors?

Mr. HENDERSON: As direct negotiations between the Mexican Minister of Finance and the representatives of the bondholders are at present in progress in New York with a view to reaching an agreement satisfactory to the bondholders, I do not consider that the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. SAMUEL: In view of the fact that on one, if not even on a second occasion, the Mexican Government have broken the agreement to which that same Government have been a party, does he not intend to inform the Mexican Minister that guarantees will be required by His Majesty's Government to protect British savings entrusted to the Mexican Government in respect to any future agreement between the Mexican Government and the International Committee of Bankers?

Mr. HENDERSON: That is not a matter for which the Government are responsible.

Mr. SAMUEL: Are not the Government responsible for the savings of His Majesty's subjects abroad?

Mr. HENDERSON: We are not responsible if another Government fails to keep an agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

EX-MATES AND MATES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many lieutenant-commanders (ex-mate) were in the promotion zone at the time of the last half-yearly promotions; and how many were promoted to the rank of commander?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): 20 lieutenant-commanders (ex-mate) were in the promotion zone on 30th June last, one of whom was promoted to the rank of commander.

Captain W. G. HALL: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of lieutenants (ex-mate), commissioned since the revised pay regulations of 1925, who receive less pay per annum than lieutenants (ex-cadet) who are junior to them, and the difference per annum?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the Admiralty (Mr. Ammon): The answer to the first part of the question is 13 and to the second part £33 approximately.

Mr. MOSES: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the dates of the first promotions to mate and mate (E), together with the number of each branch commissioned to 31st December, 1919, remaining on the active list, promoted to commander's rank or higher, and who have compulsorily retired since 11th November, 1918, under retrenchment schemes or due to having reached the age for compulsory retirement, respectively; and will he also state at what strength it is intended to keep the executive mate branch of officers, observing that for some years the retirements have exceded the selections, or
whether it is intended to let this branch die out?

Mr. AMMON: As the reply contains many figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:


Date of first promotions to the rank.
Mates.
Mates (E).


14th February, 1913.
1st November, 1914.


Number given commissions to 31st December, 1919.
363
149


Number of above still on Active List.
54
99


Number of above promoted to rank of Commander or higher.
5
20


Compulsory retirements among above since 11th November, 1918.
53
16


Retirements (age)
22
19

After the War it was hoped to maintain the number of executive officers (ex mate) at about 100. The falling off in numbers is due to the small number of candidates coming forward, and all those qualified have been promoted.

ROYAL FLEET AUXILIARY SERVICE (RETIRING ALLOWANCES).

Sir B. PETO: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that under Clause 5 of the scheme of retiring allowances for officers serving in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service it is provided that only one-half of the time served prior to the 1st July, 1927, will be allowed to count as qualifying time for a retiring allowance, and this provision operates to the disadvantage of those officers who are senior in rank and who served throughout the Great War, he will reconsider the provision and, in any case, allow war service to count in full in assessing allowance on retirement under the scheme?

Mr. AMMON: The points raised were very carefully considered when the scheme was under preparation, and I am afraid that no modifications in the direction suggested can now be made.

Sir B. PETO: Is the hon. Gentleman of opinion that service with the Royal
Fleet auxiliaries during the War was less worthy of pension than such service at present?

Mr. AMMON: I am not expressing an opinion. I have given the hon. Baronet an answer on the facts to the question he put.

CONTRACTS (VEGETABLES).

Mr. BLINDELL: 15 and 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) at what date each year new potatoes are supplied for use on His Majesty's ships in home ports; and whether all potatoes supplied are Home produced;

(2) whether contractors for the supply of vegetables for use on His Majesty's ships and vessels in home ports are required to supply only home-grown produce; and, if not, will he give instructions that such condition shall be included in tender forms when next issued?

Mr. AMMON: No stipulation is made in the contracts for potatoes and other vegetables that supplies are to be homegrown produce, and under present conditions it would not be practicable to ensure that such a condition, if inserted, was in fact fulfilled. It may be assumed, however, that home produce is supplied when available and plentiful. As regards potatoes for His Majesty's ships, the contracts provide for new crop potatoes being supplied on and after 1st July in each year.

Mr. BLINDELL: Is it impracticable to enforce that stipulations shall be included in the tenders that will be issued that wherever possible home-grown food shall be issued to the men in the Navy?

Mr. AMMON: The hon. Member must realise that it is quite impossible to enforce that in the case of ships in foreign ports. We must purchase in the market just the same as the rest of the population.

Mr. BLINDELL: My question refers to His Majesty's ships in home ports only, and it is with regard to the home ports that I am very anxious.

Mr. SMITHERS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the supply of potatoes is plentiful just now?

Mr. AMMON: I am aware of that fact. I have answered that we purchase
in the market just the same as the normal population.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Is the Fleet being supplied whenever possible with homegrown bananas?

PAY (MATES AND SUB-LIEUTENANTS).

Captain HALL: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the dates of the commissions of the first batch of mates and of sub-lieutenants, respectively, to be paid the revised rates of pay of 1925?

Mr. AMMON: The dates are as follow: Mates—1st December, 1925. Sub-Lieutenants—1st March, 1929.

SERVICE PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).

Major LEIGHTON: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will inform the House of the number of service pensioners who have commuted a portion of their service pension during the past two years for the purpose of migration to British Dominions or Colonies, and the average age of such pensioners?

Mr. AMMON: The number is nine and the average age 48 years.

DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS.

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the number of persons at present employed at the Royal Naval Dockyard at Chatham who have been so employed for the past 10 years and are yet not on the establishment?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The number is 3,289.

Sir R. GOWER: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the desirability of granting retiring pensions after a given length of service to those employés at the Royal Naval Dockyards who, although employed there for very many years, are not considered to be on the establishment and therefore not entitled to pensions?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I regret that under the Superannuation Acts pensions can only be granted to civilian employés who have served in an established capacity.

Sir R. GOWER: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will
consider the desirability of taking on to the establishment of His Majesty's Naval Dockyards a larger proportion of those who, although coming within the category of casual employés, have been continuously employed at such dockyards for a large number of years?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply of yesterday to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha).

BOYS, ADVANCED CLASS (DIRECT ENTRY).

Viscountess ASTOR: 27.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of boys entered direct in the advanced class each year while the scheme was in force; and whether he can give the reason for its abolition?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The numbers entered under this scheme were:


1928
…
63


1929
…
58


The scheme was abolished as it did not appear that by it the Royal Navy was getting better recruits than by the ordinary entry, which was the object of its institution.

SINGAPORE BASE.

Mr. LAMBERT: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what has been the expenditure to the latest available date on the new Singapore Base; what is the estimated total expenditure and what sums have been contributed by the Dominions; how much of the Dominion contributions has been spent; and when it is expected the base will be complete?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The total expenditure on the Singapore Base, including the Floating Deck, which has been met from Navy Votes to the latest available date is £2,577,000. The estimated total expenditure is £8,721,000. Contributions have been received by the Admiralty from the Dominions and Colonies to the extent of £1,672,000, the whole of which has been applied towards the naval expenditure incurred to date. These figures relate to Navy Funds only and do not cover expenditure from or contributions appropriated in aid of Army or Air Votes. The date for completion of the main contract is September, 1935, and about two years further will be required
for equipment of the Base, and completion of the machinery installation, making the final date for completion the end of 1937. These dates are subject to the effect of any decision which may be given consequent on a review of the policy which as I have already intimated to the House is to be undertaken in consultation with the Overseas Governments concerned.

Mr. LAMBERT: When is the review of policy to take place? Is it to be decided at the Imperial Conference?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Consultation with the Dominions will take place at the Imperial Conference. The consultation with the other Overseas Governments affected will go on direct.

Mr. LAMBERT: Meanwhile is the Base being constructed now at full blast?

Mr. ALEXANDER: No. I have already told the House that nothing is being done at present except to proceed with the Jackson contract; that is the main contractors' contract. All the other works, armaments, etc., are suspended.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to state the final decision of His Majesty's Government in regard to the Imperial Conference?

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter does not arise out of the question.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: If the Dominions are desirous of the Dock being completed, will the Government go full speed ahead and follow out the desires of the Dominions?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I cannot anticipate what will be the decision of the Imperial Conference.

Mr. LAMBERT: 51.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what amount has been spent on Air Force works at Singapore and what is the Air Force garrison it is proposed to station there when the base is completed?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): The answer to the first part of the question is that approximately £358,000 has been spent to date. As regards the second part, the strength of the Air Forces which will
normally be stationed at Singapore as at present contemplated is one squadron of flying boats and one squadron of land machines, apart from any Fleet Air Arm units which may from time to time be disembarked there.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is the expenditure still going on, or has it been suspended pending the result of the deliberations of the Imperial Conference?

Mr. MONTAGUE: This is an air base, and the expenditure is going on.

Captain CAZALET: Is there any aircraft there at the present moment?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I shall require notice of that question.

FILMS (PRODUCTION AND ASSISTANCE).

Mr. R. S. YOUNG: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty under what conditions did he permit Royal Marines to act in the production of the film "Tell England"; whether any financial benefit came to the Admiralty; and what fees, if any, were paid to the Marines concerned?

Mr. AMMON: The permission for Royal Marines to be photographed in connection with the production of the film "Tell England" was granted on the usual Admiralty conditions, which were stated in the reply given by the late Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Commander Kenworthy) on 6th December, 1927 (Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 211, No. 132, col. 1180). With regard to the second part of the question a percentage of any profits arising from the exploitation of the film will be paid by the company to the Admiralty, one half of which will be paid over to the Naval Sports Fund for the benefit of the men of the Fleet. No fees are paid to Naval personnel photographed.

Mr. YOUNG: Is my hon. Friend aware that this film company first approached the War Office and turned down their offer on the ground of cost? Are we to assume, therefore, that there are two different prices quoted from Government Departments?

Mr. AMMON: I am afraid that that is a question I cannot answer. I have answered as far as the Admiralty is concerned, and I know nothing about the other matter.

Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say whether there is one officer who controls all the cinematograph work for all the different Departments?

Mr. YOUNG: This matter is important because—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not make a speech.

Mr. YOUNG: 52.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the rate of charge at which the Air Ministry loaned an airplane to the British Instructional Films in their production of Secrets of Nature?

Mr. MONTAGUE: My hon. Friend has apparently been misinformed. No aircraft have been loaned by the Air Ministry to British Instructional Films, Limited. The transaction was one between the film company in question and a firm of aircraft constructors, who came to an arrangement whereby two aeroplanes which were under order for the Air Ministry, and were being tested before delivery, were used for the purpose of having certain pictures taken in the air. The Air Ministry was concerned in the matter only in so far as it stipulated, in agreeing to the arrangement, that it should not be charged with the cost of the flights made for that particular purpose. What charge was actually to be made against the film company was a matter for arrangement between the company and the firm, and I have no official information in regard to the amount.

ASHANTI (CRIMINAL TRIALS).

Mr. DAY: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to amend and alter the existing procedure for the trial of Europeans on capital charges in Ashanti, Gold Coast Territory, so as to enable individuals charged on a capital charge to be represented by counsel and tried by jury; and can he say what action is being taken in the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): The situation as regards criminal trials in Ashanti has been radically altered by the establishment of the West African Court of Appeal, which can entertain criminal appeals from Courts in Ashanti. It is not considered that it would be practicable to alter the procedure in the case of Europeans only, and whatever alterations are made in the procedure will apply to accused persons of all races alike. There are serious difficulties in the matter of finding the necessary personnel for juries, even in capital cases, but the Governor of the Gold Coast has submitted a full review of the whole situation which is at present being considered.

Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say when a decision will be arrived at with regard to that report?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir, I cannot give any date. We have just received the report, but we have not had time to consider it.

HONG KONG (MUI-TSAI SYSTEM).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if any report has been received from the Governor of Hong Kong on the administration of the mui-tsai system?

Viscountess ASTOR: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received a report from the Governor of Hong Kong on the workings of new measures for the abolition of the mui-tsai system?

Dr. SHIELS: The answer is in the negative. It is rather early yet to expect the report, which is to be concerned with the six months preceding the 1st of June.

Mr. WHITE: Will the hon. Gentleman circulate the report when it comes to hand?

Dr. SHIELS: We will consider that request.

CYPRUS (AGRICULTURAL CREDITS).

Mr. WHITE: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of agricultural co-operative
societies which have been established in Cyprus in each of the last three years, and the total amount of the loans made to these societies by the Agricultural Credit Bank as on the last convenient date?

Dr. SHIELS: The numbers are, respectively, 48, 171 and 52. The amount advanced up to the end of 1929 was £284,542.

NIGERIA (DISTURBANCES).

Mr. HORRABIN: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the commission of inquiry into the disturbances in the eastern division of Nigeria has yet made its report; and whether that report is to be published?

Dr. SHIELS: I have not yet received any information as to when the report of the commission may be expected. Information has been received from the Governor of Nigeria to the effect that he proposes to publish the report, together with the evidence taken and official documents, as soon as the necessary material is available. I expect, however, that the report will be a voluminous document, and will necessarily take some time to print locally. As soon as copies are received one will be placed in the Library for the convenience of Members.

Mr. HORRABIN: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that non-Nigerian natives resident in Aba township, in Eastern Nigeria, have petitioned the Governor against the fine of 30s. imposed on every householder under the Collective Punishment Ordinance; that this fine will have to be paid by many natives who used their influence to try to prevent the disturbances, although European residents are exempt from it; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. My attention has previously been called to a report in the Press on the subject, and later reports appear to indicate that fines were not being levied at any rate for the present. The Governor has been asked to forward the necessary information.

Mr. HORRABIN: Will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that there is very
considerable feeling in this country, and in the Colony, against this method of punishing wholesale innocent people?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir; I recognise that there is a feeling against collective punishment. I would point out that in this case there was no personal injury, but a very considerable amount of looting took place at stores, and damage to the amount of over £25,000 was committed.

Mr. McSHANE: Is the hon. Gentleman in that sense trying to justify promiscuous punishment?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. I am merely stating the facts.

IMAM OF THE YEMEN.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present position in regard to the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Imam of the Yemen; what other countries have already recognised the Imam; and what are the reasons for the delay in concluding an amicable treaty between Great Britain and the Imam?

Dr. SHIELS: A reply has now been received to the letter addressed to the Imam of the Yemen by the Resident at Aden in pursuance of the correspondence to which I referred in my answer to the question addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) on the 14th April. The reply is under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make a further statement. So far as I am, aware, the countries which have already recognised the Imam are Italy, Germany and the Soviet Union. The delay in concluding a treaty between this country and the Imam is due to his reluctance to give an adequate assurance against his encroachment on districts under the protection of His Majesty's Government.

PALESTINE.

Mr. WHITE: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if any report has been received from Sir John Hope Simpson in reference to the suspended certificates of immigration into Palestine?

Dr. SHIELS: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. MARCUS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government proposes to grant facilities for a debate on the report of the Palestine Commission of Inquiry before the end of this Session; and, if so, whether a whole parliamentary day will be provided for this purpose?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): As my hon. Friend is aware, the state of public business is such that it is difficult to find time for a debate of this kind. If, however, it was desired, the most convenient arrangement would be for the debate to be taken on one of the remaining Supply days to be arranged through the usual channels.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: In the event of it not being found possible to have a debate before the Recess, will the Prime Minister consider suspending the decision not to allow further Jewish immigration into Palestine in the meantime?

The PRIME MINISTER: That question has been answered by the Department concerned. We are governed by the condition that until we have the report of Sir John Hope Simpson we must hold our hand as far as we possibly can.

Mr. McSHANE: Will the Prime Minister assure us that the debate will not take place until the McMahon correspondence has been published, as promised by the hon. Member?

Captain CAZALET: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Egyptian labourers have been admitted into Palestine since the Jewish labour certificates were suspended on 14th May?

Dr. SHIELS: I regret that I am not in a position to give the desired information, but I will ask for a report.

Captain CAZALET: Does the hon. Gentleman imply that he is aware that a certain number of Egyptian labourers have gone into Palestine in the last few months?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes; I have already explained that a certain number have been admitted under very strict limitations. They are not to remain for more than three months and are not admitted if other labour is available.

Captain CAZALET: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there has been any influx of Arab labour from Transjordan during the past month; and whether there is any control over their employment after having entered Palestine?

Dr. SHIELS: I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject, except that I am not aware of any such influx.

EAST AFRICA (NATIVE POLICY).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether despatches have been sent to the Governors of Tanganyika, Uganda, Northern Rhodesia, and Nyasaland directing them to introduce legislation, and in particular land legislation, to bring their existing ordinances into line with the statement of native policy recently issued as Command Paper No. 3573; when the Kenya legislature will meet to consider the 31 amendments to existing local ordinances required to bring them into conformity with the detailed proposals of the White Paper; and whether any representations from the different Governments as to varying the application of the White Paper will be considered?

Dr. SHIELS: The Governors of all the East African Dependencies have been instructed, as is stated in the foreword to the Memorandum on Native Policy in East Africa, to take immediate steps to ensure that the policy in regard to native administration in these territories is brought into strict conformity, if in any respect this is not at present the case, with that laid down in the Memorandum. The Governors of the territories concerned will no doubt consider what legislation is necessary to give effect to these instructions. As regards the second part of the question, I am not aware when the Kenya Council will meet to consider any legislation which may be found necessary. As regards the third part of the question, the views expounded in the White Paper are a declaration of the policy of His Majesty's Government, and it was not anticipated that the Governments of the territories concerned would have any representations to make. If, however, any such representations should be made, my Noble
Friend would of course consider them, but he would not contemplate any departure from the principles enunciated in the Paper.

Earl WINTERTON: Having regard to the diversity of conditions in these different territories and the fact that there are elected members of the various Legislative Councils, will the hon. Member take into consideration any representation that may be made either by a Legislative Council as a whole or by the unofficial members of it?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir. We would certainly be prepared to consider any representations subject to the conditions laid down in my answer. Although it is true that there is a great diversity of conditions, the same general principles should apply to all.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 47.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the proposed Joint Select Committee of both Houses will be invited to report on any fresh legislation required in any of the East African dependencies for the purpose of bringing existing Orders in Council or local ordinances into conformity with the terms of the recent White Paper on Native Policy?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. The White Paper on Native Policy will not form one of the subjects for consideration by the Joint Committee, the appointment of which my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies recently foreshadowed in another place.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 48.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is being taken by the Governments of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia to communicate to their officers and to natives of those protectorates the terms of the statement of native policy set out in Command Paper 3573?

Dr. SHIELS: The Governors of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia have been instructed that the widest possible publicity should be given to the statement on native policy set out in Command Paper No. 3573. They have been informed by my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies that he wishes copies to be communicated to Government officials, who may be in any
way concerned, and in particular that every administrative officer should be supplied with a copy. My Noble Friend has not yet been informed what steps have been taken to carry out these instructions.

SAFEGUARDING POLICY AND EMPIRE MARKETS.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the declarations in favour of Empire economic unity by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress and certain bankers in this country, if he will state when he will give this House an opportunity of discussing this question?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot provide time in this House for the discussion of the pronouncement of outside bodies. The subject is to be embodied in a Vote of Censure for which I am to give facilities.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will the Prime Minister take off the Government Whips during such discussion.

WEST INDIES (SUGAR INDUSTRY).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 49.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the action which has been taken locally by the Governments of the West Indies for the purpose of meeting the crisis in the sugar industry there?

Dr. SHIELS: Jamaica and Trinidad are the only West Indian Colonies which have found themselves able to give temporary assistance to the sugar industry in the present crisis, from their own resources. In Jamaica a law has been passed to provide for a bounty not exceeding £2 per ton of sugar manufactured in the year 1929–30, available for a period of one year. The law further provides that not less than 80 per cent. of the 1929–30 crop shall be exported. In Trinidad the Legislative Council has passed a Resolution in favour of granting a loan of £2 per ton of sugar exported during 1930, for a period not exceeding 15 years and subject to certain conditions as to the price to be paid for cane and the wages of labour.

FORCED LABOUR (CONVENTION).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 50.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Government to recommend the ratification of the convention concerning forced or compulsory labour which was recently adopted by the International Labour Conference?

Dr. SHIELS: The report of the British Delegates at the recent International Labour Conference on the question of forced or compulsory labour has only just reached me and the convention is not likely to be communicated officially to His Majesty's Government for some time. In these circumstances I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to be good enough to repeat his question in, say, a fortnight's time.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he is going to publish the report of the British delegates?

Dr. SHIELS: I cannot give an answer to that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR CARS (HEADLIGHTS).

Mr. MILLS: 54.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that Mr. Harry Ringrove, of Danson Crescent, Welling, was fatally injured at Farningham on 20th June, due to dazzling headlights on approaching cars; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation to reduce this danger?

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The particular fatality to which my hon. Friend refers has not been brought to my notice, but the question of dazzling headlights has been receiving my anxious consideration, and I hope to make provisional regulations under the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927, at an early date dealing with this very difficult subject.

CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.

Mr. SCURR: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport the terms of his communication to the London County Council with regard to the council's proposal that he should be represented on the London County Council Advisory Committee on the proposed Charing Cross Bridge?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: AS the answer would necessarily be of considerable length, I think that it would be generally convenient if I circulate, by means of the OFFICIAL REPORT, a copy of the letter of the 20th June, which I caused to be sent to the London County Council in reply to their letter of the 4th June, a copy of which I will also circulate.

Mr. MILLS: Has the Minister further considered the suggestion that Members should be allowed an opportunity to suggest a bridge?

Mr. MORRISON: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend means. One matter as it now stands was referred by the London County Council to an advisory committee recently set up, and any question of other people to be consulted will be a matter for the London County Council.

Following are the letters:

COPY.

E.33198.

"The London County Council,

The County Hall,

Westminster Bridge,

S.E.1.

4th June, 1930.

Sir,

CHARING CROSS BRIDGE SCHEME.

I am directed to inform you that the Council at its meeting yesterday, had under consideration the question of the further steps to be taken in the matter of the Charing Cross Bridge scheme, following the rejection of the London County Council (Charing Cross Bridge) Bill by the Select Committee of the House of Commons. After discussing a report from its Parliamentary Committee (a copy of this report is enclosed) the Council decided not to take any steps in the direction of obtaining the recommittal of the Bill by the House of Commons. The Council has further, on the recommendation of its Improvements Committee—a copy pf whose report is also enclosed—resolved as follows:

That, subject to the concurrence of the Minister of Transport, an advisory committee be appointed by the Council for the purpose of preparing and submitting to the Council, within nine months, an agreed scheme for a road bridge and approaches at Charing Cross; that it be an instruction to the advisory committee that the estimated net cost of such scheme must not exceed £12,500,000; that the advisory committee be constituted as follows:


Authority or society.
Number of representatives.


Ministry of Transport
2


London County Council
2


Westminster City Council
1


Lambeth Metropolitan Borough Council
1


Southern Railway Company
2


Underground Electric Railway Company
1


Port of London Authority
1


Royal Fine Art Commission
1


Royal Academy
1


Royal Institute of British Architects
1


Institution of Civil Engineers
2


Surveyors' Institution
1


Town Planning Institute
1


that the advisory committee be presided over by an independent chairman to be appointed by the Council; and that the Council reserves its right to increase the membership of the advisory committee.

I am to ask that the Council may receive an assurance at the earliest possible moment of the concurrence of the Minister of Transport in the setting up of the proposed advisory committee in order that invitations may be sent to the other authorities and societies concerned to appoint representatives to serve on the committee, and that the necessary steps for convening the committee may be taken with the least possible delay.

I am also to ask that the Minister, in the event of his concurring in the appointment of the advisory committee, will nominate two representatives to serve thereon.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

(Sgd.) MONTAGUE H. COX.

Clerk of the Council.

COPY.

R.L.T. 4180.

20th June, 1930.

"Sir,

CHARING CROSS BRIDGE SCHEME.

I am directed by the Minister of Transport to refer to your letter of the 4th June, E.33198, upon the subject of the Charing Cross Bridge scheme, forwarding copies of reports of the Parliamentary Committee and the Improvements Committee, dated the 29th and 30th May, respectively, which were adopted by the Council at their meeting on the 3rd June.

The Minister notes that the Council have decided not to take any steps in the direction of attempting to obtain the recommittal of the Charing Cross Bridge Bill by the House of Commons, but, subject to the concurrence of the Minister, to appoint an Advisory Committee to prepare and submit to the Council, within nine months, an agreed scheme for a road bridge and approaches at Charing Cross, at an estimated cost not exceeding £12,500,000.

If the Advisory Committee were able to agree on a scheme and to reach such agreement in nine months, its report would be received by the Council in March. 1931.
Notwithstanding the agreement of the Advisory Committee, it is of course, possible that other representations may be received and that further points may arise which it would be necessary to examine. The report would then have to be considered by the Council and by the Minister, who would feel bound to consult the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee.

The Minister of course, appreciates that under the procedure proposed, the Council hopes, by bringing all parties into close consultation, to reduce disagreements and delays, and that it may therefore not be impossible for the Council to come to a decision to promote legislation in the Parliamentary Session of 1931/32 by the date required in its Standing Orders. It will be seen, however, that the earliest date by which the Royal Assent is likely to be secured for the Council's Bill is the Summer of 1932 or roughly two years from the present time. The Council's proposals thus involve that both the present and the next session of Parliament are lost, and the Minister cannot but confess to some concern at the time which must elapse under the Council's proposals in the most favourable circumstances before Parliamentary sanction can be secured to a Bill.

As the Council is aware, His Majesty's Government attach great importance to the construction of a Charing Cross Bridge at the earliest practicable date, and the Council may be sure that their anxiety to see this improvement effected continues. The Minister is not disposed to dissent from a procedure which has commended itself to the Council, but in all the circumstances he does not consider that he should himself appoint representatives to serve as Members of the Advisory Committee, since, in view of the large traffic and financial considerations involved, he must be free at the time the scheme is submitted to him to consider it upon its merits and to examine it from the financial aspect, taking into account the position of the Road Fund at that time. I am, however, to assure you that he will facilitate any investigation the Committee may undertake by putting at its disposal all the information and technical assistance available in the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. Morrison notes the reference in the last paragraph of the Report of the Improvements Committee to Waterloo Bridge, from which he gathers that it is not intended to deal with Waterloo Bridge until Parliamentary sanction is secured for a Road Bridge at Charing Cross. He is aware of the concern which the state of Waterloo Bridge has long caused the Council and he assumes that it has satisfied itself that the Bridge will be safe during the time contemplated by the Council before a Charing Cross Bridge Bill is passed into law.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

(Signed) CYRIL HURCOMBE."

PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC, PICCADILLY CIRCUS.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will
take measures to secure that pedestrians may cross Piccadilly with reasonable security for life and limb at some other point than the existing subterranean passage at Piccadilly Circus, the only point where such crossing is at present possible; and whether he will adopt the idea of a second subterranean passage somewhere in the neighbourhood of Down Street, Albemarle Street, or Bond Street?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Refuges are available in Piccadilly at frequent intervals for the protection of pedestrians; and, under the London Electric Railway Act passed this Session, a subway is to be constructed across Piccadilly in connection with the re-construction of Dover Street Station.

Sir C. OMAN: Would it surprise the Minister of Transport to know that a refuge is no good if a line of omnibuses and more especially chars-a-bancs, one touching another, extend the whole way from the Royal Academy to Piccadilly Circus? Refuges are then extremely interesting objects, but quite inaccessible, and my experience only last week shows—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

RAILWAY EMPLOYÉS.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport what proportion of the £118,000,000 paid by the railway companies in salaries and wages in 1928 is represented by the employment of persons whose emoluments were not included in the Board of Trade Return in respect of the year 1913, when the total figure shown was only £44,500,000?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The amount of £118,000,000 is made up of approximately £106,000,000 representing the aggregate salaries and wages paid to railway staff in 1928 and approximately £12,000,000 in respect of staff employed in the ancillary businesses of the railway companies. The latter figure includes the staff employed in connection with collection and delivery services which, in the 1913 returns, was grouped with the railway staffs and I am unable to state what deduction should be made in respect of that staff, in order to render the figures for the two years comparable.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: May I ask whether the extra staff is a comparatively trivial matter, and that, in fact, a very small figure could be set aside for this service?

Mr. MATHERS: Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind the fact that in 1913 railway wages were scandalously low?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members appear to be giving information.

ACCIDENTS.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the latest week for which he has records of the number of accidents in which passenger vehicles, goods vehicles and locomotives and motor tractors, respectively, as indicated in the First Schedule of the Road Traffic Bill, were involved; how many persons were killed at the time; how many seriously injured, requiring detention in hospitals; and how many received minor injuries?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I regret that statistics are not available enabling me to give the details in respect of accidents for which my hon. Friend asks. The powers sought under the Road Traffic Bill will, I hope, result in more information being available on this subject in the future.

Mr. WILSON: Does that mean that no statistics are kept by the Ministry of Transport?

Mr. MORRISON: It is not true that no statistics are kept but the figures are not known to the extent of the classification asked for by the hon. Member.

Mr. WILSON: Is that due to any lack of power to obtain these statistics?

Mr. MORRISON: I am afraid that the existing machinery does not give us the opportunity of getting statistics in this detail, but we shall have additional powers under the Road Traffic Bill when it is passed into law.

LONDON TRAFFIC.

Mr. R. S. YOUNG: 62.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has, by direct negotiation or through the intermediary of the London Traffic Advisory Committee, arranged for the removal
from the carriageway of entrances to public conveniences and cab shelters which have been reported by the police as dangerous and obstructive to traffic and recommended for removal?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Where I have been satisfied, after consultation with the London Traffic Advisory Committee, that public conveniences and cab shelters are a cause of danger or obstruction, every endeavour has been made, in conjunction with the local and highway authorities concerned, to have them removed, and this has been successfully effected in a number of instances. The provision of suitable alternative sites often presents difficulty and, in the case of public conveniences, removal or reconstruction may involve very considerable expense.

Mr. MILLS: Is there not a time honoured custom to provide shelters for those engaged with public conveyances at all hours of the night and day, and are they not entitled to some form of accommodation?

Mr. MORRISON: That is one of the considerations which we must keep in mind.

ROAD WORKS (PROCEDURE).

Mr. MARKHAM: 55.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many of the highway authorities allege that the time occupied in correspondence and the long intervals that elapse in getting replies to inquiries addressed to his Department is a principal reason for the delay in commencing road work; and whether he will investigate the procedure adopted and the time taken in correspondence and reference backward and forward between highway authorities, his own Department, the Treasury, and the Ministry of Health with a view to reducing delays, duplication and overlapping, and to relieve Whitehall by placing more responsibility for executive decisions on the men on the spot, namely, the responsible officers of the local authorities acting in consultation with his own district engineers?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The procedure adopted in dealing with applications from local authorities is kept under review, with the object of expediting
the progress of works. At the recent conferences with local authorities in London and at Edinburgh, there has been a frank interchange of views and a number of useful suggestions have been made. As a result, further steps are being taken to speed up procedure, even to the extent of omitting checks with which under normal conditions it would not be advisable to dispense. Delays would often be avoided or reduced if local authorities themselves were to furnish more adequate information as to the precise nature and probable cost of the schemes when they submit their proposals.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT, EDINBURGH.

Mr. MATHERS: 63.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is now in a position to make an announcement regarding the conditions of service of the employés of contractors who are entrusted with the performance of work for his Department in Edinburgh?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I am considering a proposal to take into direct employment certain men now employed by contractors in Edinburgh, but am not at the moment in a position to make a state-merit on the matter.

Mr. MATHERS: In view of the length of time that this matter has been under consideration, can the right hon. Member give any indication when a decision is likely to be made?

Mr. LANSBURY: If my hon. Friend will exercise a little more patience I shall be able to give him a satisfactory answer.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.

Mr. DAY: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the amount of money which has been devoted, for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, to subsidising lectures for the Empire Marketing Board; whether the synopsis of each lecture is passed by the publicity committee before it is given; and the number of lectures that have been given during the above period?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): During the 12 months ended on 30th April, 1930, 2,413 lectures were delivered under the Board's auspices at a total cost to the Empire Marketing Fund of £10,408 16e. 7d. Of this amount £4,209 4s. represents expenditure on the provision of 903 subsidised lectures on subjects of general Empire interest booked through lecture agencies. The synopses of these lectures, were approved by the Education Sub-Committee of the Publicity Committee before the lectures were added to the Board's approved list. I may add that the scheme for subsidising lectures of this type terminated on 30th April last and has not been renewed.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Member say whether the whole of these lectures were delivered in Great Britain?

Mr. LUNN: I think that is the case.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Was the Secretary of State for War present at any of these lectures?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

NEED PENSIONS.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 65.
asked the Minister of Pensions the total savings made by his Department during the past 12 months on need pensions granted to parents of dead soldiers as a result of them receiving either a widow's or old age pension?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 30th June to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of stopping the practice of reducing these pensions?

TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 66.
asked the Minister of Pensions the total number of men who have been refused treatment allowance for their wives and families on the grounds that they had not been in employment previous to treatment being sanctioned during the past 12 months?

Mr. ROBERTS: There is no record of the number of cases referred to, which I understand are comparatively few.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is not that a reason why the right hon. Genleman should see that the wives and families of unemployed men do not suffer because they happen to be unemployed?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am ready to consider any representations which are made to me in the cases referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that for 12 mouths he has been considering this matter? He has been asked to introduce the human touch, which is lacking here. Is he not going to take steps to see that the wife of an unemployed person is at least as well treated, and that his family is not punished because he is unemployed?

Mr. ROBERTS: I can only repeat that I am quite willing to consider any representations that are made to me.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the general question?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CONFERENCE.

Mr. FREEMAN: 67
asked the Secretary of State for India (1) who will be the representatives, or how they will be selected, to attend the roundtable Conference on Indian affairs called for the autumn;

(2) what will be the terms of reference, constitution and powers of the roundtable Conference on Indian affairs called for 20th October, 1930;

(3) whether he can make a statement as to the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the round-table Conference on Indian affairs called for the autumn?

Mr. BRACKEN: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House an assurance that the Indian Statutory Commission's Report will form the basis of His Majesty's Government's policy at the forthcoming round-table Conference?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether
he can give the House any further information with regard to the composition or the date of the round-table Conference or the terms of reference?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): Addressing the two Houses of the Indian Legislature at Simla, the Viceroy has to-day made a statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government dealing with the matters raised in these questions. The official text of his speech will immediately be made available to Members of the House.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask whether the statement made by the Viceroy deals with the composition of the Conference on its home side; the representation of this country in the Conference?

Mr. BENN: No. It gives what information can be given at this moment, but it does not deal with the British representation on the Conference.

Mr. FREEMAN: May I ask whether the statement will make it clear that at the round-table Conference it will be within the province of any individual, or body of individuals, to present a constitution or the basis of a constitution for the future self-government of India on a, self-governing basis and on a permanent basis?

Mr. BENN: I would ask the hon. Member to read the speech, which deals specifically with that point and with all points which can be dealt with.

Mr. BRACKEN: Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the Viceroy will deal explicitly with the question I addressed to him which concerns His Majesty's Government and not the Government of India?

Mr. BENN: If the hon. Member will go to the Vote Office immediately after Questions, he will get a reply to his question.

Mr. BROCKWAY: May I ask whether the Viceroy's statement is to be accompanied by a political amnesty to offenders in Indian prisons?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it the intention of the Government to make a
statement regarding British representation at the round-table Conference before the House adjourns?

Mr. BENN: That is a matter on which I cannot give an answer, and it does not arise out of these questions. Nor does the question of the hon. Member for Leyton East (Mr. Brockway) arise out of these questions. If they are put on the Paper of course answers will be prepared.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In Question No. 70 I ask for the composition of this round-table Conference. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give me a reply on that specific point?

Mr. BENN: I have already said that so far as a reply can be given it is given in the document to which I have referred.

Mr. BROCKWAY: On a point of Order. The Viceroy has made a statement in India to-day which is of profound importance to the future relations of this country and India. Is not this House entitled to know the character of that statement before it is widely published outside?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. That is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Government.

Mr. BROCKWAY: The point of privilege I desire to press is this, that that statement has been made in India and has been published in the Press already. Questions have been put on the matter in this House and the statement has not been reported to this House.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must realise that the time in India and in this country is different, and it is impossible to prevent the publication of statements made some time before according to our time.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: Arising out of Question No. 70, inasmuch as the composition and personnel of the Conference itself may depend on the Government's decision as to whether an amnesty is to be granted to political prisoners—

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of Question 70.

RAILWAY FOREMEN (FREE PASSAGES).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the free passages granted to foremen in ordnance departments in India from 1st April, 1930, will be also applicable to covenanted foremen on the Indian railways?

Mr. BENN: Yes, Sir.

EDUCATION (NURSERY SCHOOLS).

Viscountess ASTOR: 73.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will state the number of nursery schools at present recognised by the Board; the number run by voluntary associations; and the number of proposals for new nursery schools before the Board for approval?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): The number of nursery schools now recognised by the Board is 34, of which 20 are conducted by voluntary associations. There are at present 61 proposals for new nursery schools before the Board.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the Minister not think that it would be a good thing if the Government started on a wholesale programme of open-air nursery schools?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION.

Mr. SCOTT: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state how many inspectors of the Scottish Education Department there are in Scotland and the areas they supervise; by whom are they appointed; on what terms with regard to pensions and age limit; and what is the total annual cost of the inspectorate department for salaries and expenses, respectively?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The number of Inspectors provided for on the establishment of the Scottish Education Department is at present 63. I am arranging to send the hon. Member official publications containing the information he desires with regard to the distribution, appointment and terms of service of these officers. The amounts
paid in salaries and expenses on account of inspection in the year ended 31st March, 1930, were £51,494 and £10,273 respectively.

Mr. SCOTT: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been directed to the Annual Report of the Central Executive of the National Committee for the Training of Teachers, recently issued, showing that, of the students who left training centres and colleges in June, 1929, over 500 were still unemployed in January, 1930, and that it was probable that 1,200 of those who left at 30th June, 1930, would also be unemployed until the school-leaving age is raised; whether, in view of this excessive number of teachers, he will modify the junior student scheme of the Education Department; what steps he proposes to take to deal with the 1,700 already unemployed and the large number who are at present in training and will complete training in the next triennial period; and whether, even after the school age is raised, it will be necessary for the students to go back to training college to qualify under Articles 6 and 39?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: The figures given in the report referred to hardly bear the interpretation placed upon them by the hon. Member. The present oversupply of teachers is not due to the operation of the Scheme of preliminary school training and the question of modifying that Scheme does not therefore arise. The situation in regard to the unemployment of teachers who have completed their training is not one over which the Department have control. The requirement of additional qualifications by individual teachers is entirely voluntary on their part and will continue to be so.

Mr. SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that there is a great deal of hardship among the 17,000 junior pupil teachers in Scotland, many of whom are young girls, and does he not realise the desirability of endeavouring to find situations for them?

Mr. ADAMSON: I appreciate the hardship and have shown so in my reply.

Miss LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a reduction in the size of classes, which will both help the unemployed
teacher and facilitate the work of the child?

Mr. SCOTT: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state who are the present members of the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council appointed for education in Scotland or of the Scottish Education Department, and when they were appointed; also the composition and the number of the staff of the Department; and under what regulations the powers of the Department over the education committees of the county and town councils are regulated?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: The Lords of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland are the Lord President of the Council, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the First Lord of the Treasury, the Lord Advocate, the Right Hon. Lord Craigmyle. In the first four cases the appointment is held by virtue of office, The Right Hon. Lord Craigmyle was appointed on 13th August, 1920. For details as to the composition of the staff of the Scottish Education Department I would refer the hon. Member to the particulars furnished in the Estimate, Class IV, Vote 10. The powers of the Department as the central administrative authority for education in Scotland are exercised mainly under the terms of the Education (Scotland) Acts, 1872–1928, and the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, or under the terms of minutes, codes and regulations made in pursuance of those Acts. Powers are also conferred and duties imposed upon the Department in a number of other Acts.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the Secretary of State assure us that the last-mentioned Commissioner—I think he mentioned Lord Craigmyle—is really assiduous in attention to his duties?

Mr. ADAMSON: I understand so.

Sir FREDERICK THOMSON: When was the last meeting of the Committee held?

Mr. ADAMSON: That question had better be put on the Paper.

Mr. BUCHANAN: For how long is Lord Craigmyle appointed? Is it for life or for a definite period?

Mr. MAXTON: Can the Secretary of State tell us—this is well within his own
knowledge—whether he himself, as one of the Lords of the committee, has ever met Lord Craigmyle, another member of the committee?

CROWN LEASE, KENSINGTON.

Sir W. DAVISON: 78.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, as representing the Commissioners of Crown Lands, whether he is aware that the Crown leases of the houses of Kensington Palace Gardens contain definite covenants providing that the houses in question shall be used as private dwelling houses only; that the Crown tenant of Harrington House is proposing to transfer his lease to a tenant who intends to use the same for official and business purposes; and whether the Crown will protect the other tenants in the gardens from having their privacy disturbed by the breaking of a covenant which they themselves are severally bound to observe?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The Commissioners of Crown Lands are aware of the covenants of the Crown leases and have no knowledge of any breach of those covenants committed or in contemplation in the case of Harrington House. No action by them is therefore called for or possible. Their consent to the assignment of the lease is not necessary.

Sir W. DAVISON: Having regard to the fact that these gardens are a private road, with the gates locked at night, and that all the tenants have these covenants in their leases, surely the Crown will protect them from having the covenant broken in any case, although there is no direct privity between the tenant and the tenant of the house in question?

Dr. ADDISON: As far as I know there is no suggestion that the covenants will be broken. The solicitors for the Crown lessee inform us that the premises are to be used solely as a residence.

Sir W. DAVISON: Then they will not be used for clerical or official purposes, but only as a private residence?

Dr. ADDISON: That is the official reply, and I have no doubt that it is a correct reply.

LAND VALUATION BILL.

Sir K. WOOD: 81.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can arrange for copies of the Land Valuation Bill to be made available to Members of the House?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on this matter on the 26th June to the hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. Simmons).

Sir K. WOOD: Are copies of the Valuation Bill to be supplied or not?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the answer he will see what it says. I cannot add anything to it.

Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps the Financial Secretary is better able to interpret his own chief's ideas in this matter than I am?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

LEYTON.

Mr. SORENSEN: 82.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of male and female unemployed, respectively, registered at the Leyton Employment Exchange on 1st July; and the estimated number who were enabled to receive benefit through the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): At 30th June, 1930, there were 3,231 males and 991 females on the registers of the Leyton and Waltham-stow Employment Exchange. I am unable to give for separate Exchanges the number who have been enabled to receive benefit through the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930. I may mention, however, that on 10th March there were 4,307 persons on the register of the Leyton and Walthamstow Exchange, of whom 85.6 per cent. had claims admitted or under consideration; on 30th June the figures were 4,222 and 91.2 per cent.

BIRTH CERTIFICATES.

Mr. THURTLE: 83.
asked the Minister of Labour for what reason Employment
Exchanges have been instructed not to accept certificates of registry of birth as proof of age?

Mr. LAWSON: I am not sure that these certificates contain sufficient particulars, but I am inquiring into this matter.

WATER SUPPLY SCHEME, MALTON (LOAN).

Mr. TURTON: 84.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that the approved grant to the Mahon Rural District Council of interest on the Joan raised to carry out the street villages water supply scheme has been diminished by one-half from what was promised in April last; and whether he will reconsider the present decision of the Unemployment Grants Committee, which will result in the jeopardy of the scheme, to the consequent prejudice to the public health and the employment of unemployed labour in the district?

Mr. LAWSON: I am making inquiries, and will let my hon. Friend know the result.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what the business will be for to-morrow. I notice that there is a Motion down to-day for the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will at the same time inform us if this Motion is intended to apply only to the consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Coal Mines Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: With reference to the business to-morrow, in view of the rapid progress made yesterday, leading to the completion of the Third Reading of the Housing (No. 2) Bill last night, it is proposed to take the further stages of the Road Traffic Bill to-morrow. The suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule to-night is solely for the purpose of dealing with the Lords Amendment to the Coal Mines Bill.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

Mr. BEN TURNER: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restore to the nation, all land, minerals, rivers, streams and tributaries.
I do so because I have a profound belief that no person can he free as long as land, air or water are privately owned Because I hold that belief I attempted in 1924 to introduce a similar Bill in the House of Commons, but on that occasion I was, perhaps, unfortunate in using many Scripture illustrations, because, sometimes, Scripture is not an acceptable doctrine in certain circles in society. On this occasion I do not intend to use Scriptural illustrations, but I will quote the opinion of one of the finest economists of the world as regards the right to free land and air and water. John Locke, it cannot be denied, is a very eminent authority and he wrote in his famous work:
No man can ever have a just claim over the life of another by right of property in land.
Therefore, as long as people have rights of property in land, persons who have none are subject to the will, whim and caprice of those who own the land, and that ownership, it seems to me, interferes with the natural freedom of the people of our realm. It is a very strange fact that years ago a very large part of our land was commonly owned. I have had the privilege of looking through some records of the House of Lords dealing with the 18th century, and I find page after page of Acts of Parliament passed in that period enclosing the common lands of the people. Up to 1760 there were 244 Enclosure Bills; in the next 40 years there were 654, and from 1792 to 1816 there were 1,491. These were legalised expropriations of the common lands of the people and they strengthened the private ownership of land in this kingdom. There is an old Saxon proverb which says,
A landless man is an unfree man.
I do not think anybody can dispute that. Bishop Nulty, in one of his pastoral charges, has said:
The land of every country common property of the people country.
As most people are landless in this Kingdom, it must be the case that their
land has been taken from them, and the object of this Bill is to restore the land to the people—to all the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to notice that the recent singing of "The Land Song" has evidently converted some of my hon. Friends opposite who voted against this Bill in 1924. I do not want to indulge in politics if I can help it on this matter, because this is a right involving life and death to our people and it is above and beyond politics. The land is God-given and man-stolen. The Bill seeks to restore to the people what has been taken from them, and I am very glad to hear hon. Members opposite cheering so loudly, because they will find that one of the greatest Conservative minds in the world, the late Mr. Gladstone, made this observation. [Interruption.] It was in 1879. [Interruption.]. I hope hon. Members opposite do not seek to repudiate the finest statesman of that period. Mr. Gladstone said:
I freely own that compulsory expropriation is a thing which is admissible and even sound in principle.
[Interruption.] Well, your god said that, and I am simply repeating his story. At a later period he said:
If the time came when the British nation found that the land should be nationalised and that it would be wise to do it, they would have a perfect right to do it.
That is the foundation of my Bill this afternoon. Even the Front Bench on this side of the House can find great men who have supported the idea of land nationalisation and land ownership by the State. To the old Radical programme of 1885 that great statesman Mr. Chamberlain wrote a preface, and in the book I find these words:
All land, as Radicals of the type of Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Dilke, and Mr. Trevelyan would allow, should be subject to the right of the community as represented by the local authority to expropriate the owner for any public purpose at a fair value.
The proposition in my Bill does not deal with the finance of the question, purely because the conditions on a private Member in introducing a Bill do not allow him to deal with finance, so I am informed at the Table, but I am trying to convince our Front Bench and every Front Bench that this is a subject of
prime importance as touching the unemployment problem. There will never be a settlement of the unemployment problem in this Kingdom until we restore the land to the people and use the land by the people. Every scheme of rationalisation that has come and that is going to come along is going to dispossess the people of the chance of labour in industrial employment, so that they will have to turn to something else. I want to appeal to this House to take such steps that the nation can use the land and use our people on the land, so that they can give their physical strength for that purpose. We want land cultivation.
I am sorry that we lost this Bill in 1924, which we did by 12 votes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and I hope that the cheers of the multitude opposite mean that they are going to support this proposal, because they seem to have learned a great deal about the land problem in the last few years. I sing with joy the song to which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) gave his blessing at Criccieth—" The laud for the people." What I propose to do by this Bill is an overdue reform.

Sir GERALD HURST: As I listened to the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Turner), I could not help wondering if it was the same hon. Gentleman who, a few weeks ago, was pleading the cause of restricted output and higher prices in the interests of the mineowners. It is very difficult indeed to reconcile the sentiments to which he has just given expression with his defence of God-given and man-stolen mines during the past few months, but, at the same time, it is very natural to see this great divergence of view between the Front Bench and the back benches of the party opposite. There is no doubt that when they were in opposition we heard a great deal about Socialism standing for the nationalisation of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange, but now that the Socialists are in office, they go about the country seeking to inspire confidence, to encourage credit, to give new life to the capitalist system, and it is only right that hon. Members who suddenly find themselves translated into back benches should look upon the Socialist Government to-day as an organised hypocrisy.
I do not think we need linger upon the unhistorical history of the hon. Member, who seems to forget the enormous number of hands through which land and property have passed since, in his one view, the land belonged to the people or, in his other view, it belonged to God. As a matter of fact, so much labour, capital, industry and care have passed into the value of land to-day that what he calls the restoration of land is nothing other than the expropriation of land, and I wonder what certain of the constituents of the hon. Gentleman would think if he advocated, as he has to-day, nationalisation of their property without compensation. How many working-men in the North of England have bought their own property through their own savings and through what they have borrowed from building societies? He calls that God-given and man-stolen property, and I wonder what his own constituents think about that.

Mr. TURNER: I never suggested any expropriation without compensation. I said that I was debarred from dealing with finance by the Rules of the House.

Sir G. HURST: His Bill, if it ever sees the light, must in the very nature of things provide for expropriation without any compensation at all, and it must be obvious, even to hon. Members opposite, that it is very unjust indeed to single out one particular form of property for this confiscation. You say that land shall be

restored, and the land will carry the buildings with it, but if you say that that is a form of property which deserves confiscation, what about other forms of property? If you invest your money in a mine or in land you are not to be compensated, but if, on the other hand, you follow the advice of "Templegate" in the "Daily Herald" and win £100 on a horse, you can keep that £100.

In other words, you believe in confiscating property when it belongs to one of the bourgeoisie, and you do not believe in it when it belongs to one of the proletariat. In our view, it is not only unjust but unwise. At the present time we know—and even thoughtful men (if there be any) in the party opposite know very well—that the only way to restore the fortunes of our country is to encourage industry, to encourage hard work, and to provide it. You cannot do that if you threaten those who put up money and make investments with the entire confiscation of their earnings. The hon. Member opposite, disregarding all those first principles of economics, has said in effect, "We are out for expropriation in the cause of the proletariat." That is Socialism, and we know where it stands.

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restore to the nation all lands, minerals, rivers, streams, and tributaries.

The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 136.

Division No. 422.]
AYES.
[4.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bromfield, William
Duncan, Charles


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brooke, W.
Ede, James Chuter


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Brothers, M.
Edmunds, J. E.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Alpass, J. H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Ammon, Charles George
Brown, W. J. (Welverhampton, West)
Egan, W. H.


Arnott, John
Buchanan, G.
Forgan, Dr. Robert


Attlee, Clement Richard
Burgess, F. G.
Freeman, Peter


Ayles, Walter
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cameron, A. G.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Cape, Thomas
Gibbins, Joseph


Barnes, Alfred John
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)


Barr, James
Charleton, H. C.
Gill, T. H.


Batey, Joseph
Chater, Daniel
Gillett, George M.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Cluse, W. S.
Gossling, A. G.


Bellamy, Albert
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gould, F.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Compton, Joseph
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Cove, William G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Benson, G.
Daggar, George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Dallas, George
Groves, Thomas E.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Dalton, Hugh
Grundy, Thomas W.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Bowen, J. W.
Day, Harry
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Dickson, T.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Brockway, A, Fenner
Dukes, C.
Hardie, George D.


Haycock, A. W.
Marshall, Fred
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Hayes, John Henry
Mathers, George
Simmons, C. J.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Matters, L. W.
Sinkinson, George


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Maxton, James
Sitch, Charles H.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Melville, Sir James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Herriotts, J.
Messer, Fred
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Middleton, G.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Kelghley)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mills, J. E.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Hoffman, P. C.
Milner, Major J.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hollins, A.
Montague, Frederick
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Horrabin, J. F.
Morley, Ralph
Snell, Harry


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Isaacs, George
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Mort, D. L.
Sorensen, R.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Moses, J. J. H.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Johnston, Thomas
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Stephen, Campbell


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Strachey, E. J. St. Lee


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Murnin, Hugh
Strauss, G. R.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Sullivan, J.


Kelly, W. T.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Sutton, J. E.


Kennedy, Thomas
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Thurtle, Ernest


Kinley, J.
Palin, John Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Kirkwood, D.
Paling, Wilfrid
Tout, W. J.


Knight, Holford
Palmer, E. T.
Townend, A. E.


Lang, Gordon
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Perry, S. F.
Vaughan, D. J.


Lathan, G.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Walkden, A. G.


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Walker, J.


Lawrence, Susan
Pole, Major D. G.
Wallace, H. W.


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Potts, John S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lawson, John James
Price, M. P.
Watkins, F. C.


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Leach, W.
Raynes, W. R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wellock, Wilfred


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Ritson, J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Logan, David Gilbert
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
West, F. R.


Longbottom, A. W.
Romeril, H. G.
Westwood, Joseph


Lowth, Thomas
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Lunn, William
Rowson, Guy
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


McElwee, A.
Sanders, W. S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


McEntee V. L.
Sandham, E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sawyer, G. F.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


McKinlay, A.
Scurr, John
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


MacLaren, Andrew
Sexton, James
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


McShane, John James
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wise, E. F.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Mansfield, W.
Sherwood, G. H.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


March, S.
Shield, George William



Marcus, M.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Markham, S. F.
Shillaker, J. F.
Mr. Ben Turner and Mr. James


Marley, J.
Shinwell, E.
Wilson.


NOES.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Cowan, D. M.
Glassey, A. E.


Astor, Viscountess
Cranborne, Viscount
Gray, Milner


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Beaumont, M. W.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Berry, Sir George
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Blindell, James
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hanbury, C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Harbord, A.


Bracken, B.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Briscoe, Richard George
Elmley, Viscount
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
England, Colonel A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Buchan, John
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Fermoy, Lord
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Carver, Major W. H.
Fielden, E. B.
Hurd, Percy A.


Ceyzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Foot, Isaac
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Iveagh, Countess of


Chapman, Sir S.
George, Megan Lloyd (Analesea)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)




King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Somerset, Thomas


Knox, Sir Alfred
Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Penny, Sir George
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstapie)
Thomson, Sir F.


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Pybus, Percy John
Tinne, J. A.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lymington, Viscount
Ramsbotham, H.
Turton, Robert Hugh


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wayland, Sir William A.


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Wells, Sydney R.


Marjoribanks, E. C.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Withers, Sir John James


Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Mond, Hon. Henry
Scott, James
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome



Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Sir Gerald Hurst and Mr.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Womersley.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Smithers, Waldron

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Turner, Mr. Tom Smith, Mr. Thurtle, Mr. Ben Riley, Mr. Sherwood, Mr. James Wilson, and Mr. MacLaren.

PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF NATURAL RESOURCES BILL,

"to restore to the nation all lands, minerals, rivers, streams, and tributaries," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 23rd July, and to be printed. [Bill 229.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1930).

Estimate presented,—of a further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1931 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Maidstone Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Bognor Regis and Chepping Wycombe) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Cranbrook District Water and Sevenoaks Water) Bill,

Board of Education Scheme (Devon, Crediton Exhibition Foundation) Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order
of the Minister of Health relating to Essex." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Essex) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Torquay and Weymouth and Melcombe Regis." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Torquay and Weymouth and Melcombe Regis) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Hartlepool Gas and Water Company to construct waterworks; to confer further powers upon that Company; and for other purposes." [Hartlepool Gas and Water Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill).]

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Essex) Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 226.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Torquay and Weymouth and Melcombe Regis) Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 227.]

Hartlepool Gas and Water Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill),

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SOLICITORS (CLIENTS' ACCOUNTS) BILL,

"to require and regulate the keeping by practising solicitors of banking accounts for clients' moneys and proper books of
accounts," presented by Sir John Withers; supported by Major Hills, Sir Robert Gower, and Mr. Bird; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 228].

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Further considered in Committee. [Progress, 7th July.]

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Relief to company reserves.)

A company which proves in the manner prescribed by the Fourth Schedule to this Act to the satisfaction of the Commissioners by whom the assessment is made that it has in the accounting year or period of twelve months deemed to be the year the profits and gains of which are to be taken as the profits and gains of the year preceding the year of assessment a balance of undistributed profits and gains derived from profits and gains charged to Income Tax under Case I of Schedule D, and that that balance or part thereof has been invested as capital in the form of plant and machinery used for the purposes of the business or in the form of land or buildings constituting an industrial hereditament used for the purposes of the business shall be entitled to relict from Income Tax upon the amount of that balance or the part thereof so invested as determined by column 10 of the statement to be provided by the Fourth Schedule to this Act at the rate of sixpence in the pound.

In this section—
The expression "company" includes any body corporate, wheresoever incorporated, chargeable to Income Tax under Case I of Schedule D;
The expression "invested as capital" means moneys charged to the capital account of fixed assets in the balance sheet of the company or deemed to be capital expenditure for Income Tax purposes;
The expression "plant and machinery" means plant and machinery in respect of which an allowance has been or will be granted or could alternatively be claimed under Rule 6 of Cases I and II of Schedule D;
The expression "industrial hereditament" means any mills, factories, or other similar premises in respect of which the limitation in Rule 5 of Cases I and II of Schedule D has been or will be excluded by the proviso thereto or to which section eighteen of the Finance Act, 1919, applies—[Major Nathan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Major NATHAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I regret that the phraseology of this new Clause should be complicated. It
is necessarily so, having regard to the fact that it is framed for insertion in legislation which is itself complicated. It is framed for the purpose of embodying a very simple proposition, namely, that a company which applies any of its undistributed profits to expenditure upon plant, machinery, mills or factories shall be entitled to an allowance of 6d. in the £ off Income Tax on the amount so expended. In placing this new Clause before the Committee, it is proper that I should say that I and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett), and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin), have placed this Clause upon the Order Paper on our own responsibility, and that, in contradistinction to the next new Clause upon the Order Paper, there is no responsibility attaching to the Liberal party as such in respect of this new Clause.
Having said so much, let me proceed to say that this Clause is designed as an integral part of the permanent financial structure of this country. It is not in any sense proposed as a temporary measure to meet any temporary emergency, and it is confined within comparatively narrow limits. For instance, it will be observed, in the first place, that it is confined to companies only, and for this reason, that by far the greatest part of the manufacturing energies of this country are concentrated in companies, and that by including companies, and restricting the operation of the Clause to companies, practically the whole field is covered. Then it is limited to undistributed profits—that is, income chargeable to Income Tax—which are actually applied as capital investment in what is expenditure upon fixed assets for the purposes of the balance sheet, or, alternatively, upon assets on which, for the purposes of Income Tax, there is an allowance made by the Revenue authorities for wear and tear, or who have been disallowed as expenses against revenue as being properly attributable to current capital expenditure. And it is limited to a definite form of expenditure, that definite form being plant, machinery, mills, factories and the like.
It will, therefore, be seen that the Clause is restricted within relatively narrow limits as regards definition,
although it covers practically the whole field of British manufacturing industry in its operation. The justification, if any justification is required at this time of day for a Clause of this character, is this. It must be common ground amongst Members of all parties that it is essential that we should keep ourselves in line with the most modern requirements and be up-to-date relatively to our manufacturing competitors all over the world in relation to our equipment and plant, and it is a reflection which I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind, because it is too often overlooked that when a company requires to make a capital expenditure upon plant, and to buy, say, £1,000 worth of plant, it is not £1,000 that it has to find for the purpose. A sum has to be found out of profits which will leave, after Income Tax has been paid, £1,000 available for capital expenditure. In other words, every £1,000 worth of machinery purchased out of profits by a company involves an expenditure, with the present rates of Income Tax, of just short of £1,300; in other words, 77 per cent. alone of our expenditure upon machinery is devoted to that purpose and the balance goes to the State.
With a view to remedying that maladjustment in some small measure, and as a first instalment, this proposed Clause is brought forward. Those who have studied it will observe that the method of computation of the relief is left to a schedule. The whole technique of calculation is to be found in the proposed Fourth Schedule, which appears on the Order Paper in the same names as this proposed Clause. It looks as if it were a complicated matter, but in fact it is simplicity itself. It means that the Inland Revenue will continue to do, in reference to all these matters, what they have done for a great number of years in reference to relief under Rules 5 and 6, Cases 1 and 2 of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act of 1918. There is nothing new in it at all. I do not propose to weary the Committee, especially as they wish to some to another Amendment, by attempting to cover anything like the whole field, or even a considerable part of it, for, after all, this question of taxation of industrial reserves has been for years past a subject of debate after debate in this Chamber, and
the subject of a discussion introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) in the debates on the Budget Resolutions, when a reply was given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.
The Colwyn Committee also devoted long and anxious attention to this question. Anyone who takes the trouble, as all hon. Members interested in industry should, of studying that report, will observe the qualifications which it makes to the proposition that industrial reserves should be exempted from Income Tax, and how it points out the likelihood that a proposal which is superficially attractive may not actually be practicable. I have borne in mind the limitations referred to by the Colwyn Committee, and I hope that I may claim, not without justice—I am open to correction by those who are better fitted than I am—that my earnest efforts to overcome the various difficulties exposed by the Colwyn Committee have in this proposed Clause been successful. For instance, the Colwyn Committee dealt with the question of industrial reserves generally, and it will be Observed that this proposed new Clause is limited to a distinct class of profit, and to a specific method of expenditure of that profit; and it has been carefully framed with a view to overcoming the various difficulties submitted by the Colwyn Committee.
Those who have read and considered their Report will have observed in Appendix 28 a long series of queries upon this matter. I shall not trouble the Committee by asking them to follow with me those various queries and the manner in which my proposed Clause meets them, but I submit that it will be found that the Clause, read with the Schedule, effectively meets the whole, or at any rate the greater part, of the qualifications and the criticisms of the Colwyn Committee. For instance, the relief is only to be extended to profit chargeable to Income Tax, and for the purpose of this new Clause, it does not matter how reserves are dealt with from the accountancy point of view, whether positively or negatively; it is irrelevant whether assets are taken in at their real or their apparent value. For the purpose of this new Clause, all that matters is actual new expenditure under defined capital purposes,
until expenditure is made out of profits on those defined capital purposes there will be no relief.
It has been argued, and it is suggested by the Colwyn Committee, that a Clause of this kind might work to the advantage of prosperous and against depressed industries. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking on a cognate matter on the 1st May, pointed out that company reserves amount to the large sum of £240,000,000, and that, of that sum, £48,000,000, or 20 per cent., actually represents the reserves of the depressed heavy industries. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to direct his attention to the passage, I have reached these figures by a simple calculation from the figures which were given by him in column 472 of the OFFICIAL REPORT on 1st May last. It is sometimes suggested that there should be no differentiation made by the State between one industry and another, but the time has long passed when the House of Commons or any Chancellor of the Exchequer should adopt the position of not taking into account whence income comes or whither it goes. Such things as the Beet Sugar Subsidy are indications of the view that Parliament takes as to the desirability of encouraging certain forms of expenditure and investment. There is the memorable example of Mr. Asquith, who differentiated between earned and unearned income, attributing a higher social value to earned income than to unearned income. There is also the well-known example of the reliefs given for insurance, which have an analogy to this case.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer will say, with justice, that any proposal of this kind will cost money, and it is because I am conscious of that fact and of his difficulties that the proposal that I have put forward is of so modest a character. The figures given by the President of the Board of Trade on 1st May were that the cost of the extra 6d. in the £—the difference between 4s. and 4s. 6d.—would be £6,000,000. From that, I calculate that the company reserves are £240,000,000—that is, 40 times the extra 6d. As regards one-third of that sum, I am satisfied that it is invested in capital assets which are not included within the purview of my proposed Clause at all. As regards another one-third, the main assets of the companies
are of an entirely different character from those of manufacturing companies, about which I am speaking. The remaining third of the £240,000,000, which might be conceivably spent in this way, limits the amount which might come within the purview of this new Clause to £80,000,000; and therefore will involve a cost to the Treasury of £2,000,000. That is a relatively small stun when compared with the purposes to be served by other expenditure, which is less remunerative to the nation, to which we are committed.
It may be said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he cannot afford it, but I submit, as every business man knows, that to produce income, you must first invest capital; and to produce more employment, you must first produce more capital. I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is calculated that an expenditure of £400 is involved for every man employed in industry, and that no additional employment can be found for any man unless a capital sum of £400 is available for the purpose. It is quite clear that with high taxation, which may possibly become higher, the savings of individuals will make a diminishing contribution to the savings of the nation, and the national necessity for a continual accumulation of capital must fall more and more to the lot of companies. Already they make a large contribution of £240,000,000, or, after Income Tax has been borne, £186,000,000, which is probably not less than 40 per cent., and perhaps 50 per cent., of our annual national savings. I do not believe that it will be inaccurate or an exaggeration to say that the greatest single influence in saving at the present time are our joint stock companies. They are not merely an influence in saving, but in determining the direction of savings. Let it not be forgotten that the direction of savings is of permanent and integral importance in matters of this kind. The directors of companies are responsible for saying whether the profits of a company shall be distributed as dividends, or set aside as reserves. Dividends on the whole are spent; they are profits which are consumed. Money put to reserve, speaking generally, are monies saved and may be regarded as capital invested and a permanent accretion to our capital resources.
I said that this new Clause is a small contribution to the essential purposes of
national reconstruction, and I do not propose to do more except to call in aid Professor Clay, the economic adviser of the banking corporation, which was recently established under the encouraging influence of the Government. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to note Professor Clay's words in a recent book, "The post-war unemployment problem," I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows this work; and anyone who knows Professor Clay or his work will know how great a value is to be attached to a statement of this kind coming from him. These are his words:
Anything, therefore, that encourages the application of profits to further expansion, instead of their distribution in dividends, anything that makes possible the application of larger amounts in this way, applies a stimulus to industry automatically at the points where the stimulus must have most effect. Both the industries that are best able to expand, and the firms in each industry that are best able to expand, will be encouraged and enabled to expand.
I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give that encouragement at the vital point.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I am perfectly familiar with the quotation from Professor Clay, which the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) read. I am equally fogged to see what relevance it has to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument and purpose. He began by explaining that the Liberal party had no responsibility for this Amendment. I am very much interested in that statement, because when I saw the names that are attached to this Amendment I thought that the oft-repeated invitation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) to those who sit below the Gangway to recognise that the Gangway is very much narrower than the Floor, had at last been accepted. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman's desire to see a coalition beween the two sections of the Opposition for a combined fight against Socialism has not yet been fully accepted. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says very regretfully that that is quite true.
The hon. and gallant Member said the new Clause is of a very simple character. The Clause itself occupies half a page of the Order Paper, and in the Schedule a
whole page, and I defy any Member to read the Clause and the Schedule and to get the faintest understanding of what the Clause means. Far from being a simple matter it is one of the greatest complication. The hon. and gallant Member has stated the purpose of the Clause, and as he explained it we can clearly understand its object. He says that by relieving from taxation at 6d. in the pound the reserves of companies which are devoted to capital expenditure a stimulus will be given to business. In passing, may I call attention to the fact that this is not a temporary Measure? The hon. and gallant Member means that his proposal shall be incorporated as a part of our Income Tax system. He went further, and said this was only a beginning, a beginning, I suppose, towards the attainment of the object which was sought in an Amendment moved earlier to secure complete exemption from taxation of all sums placed to reserves by companies.
The hon. and gallant Member said more than once that I might be influenced in my attitude towards this Clause by the cost of the full remission. What the hon. and gallant Member appears to be aiming at would cost between £50,000,000 and £60,000,000 a year. [Interruption.] I am pointing out what would be the logical outcome of his suggestion. He himself said that this was a beginning, but I am not for a moment imputing to him that if he succeeded in carrying this Clause he would propose next year that the whole of the reserves should be exempted; perhaps he might be satisfied if he could add a sixpence to the deduction each year until he had wiped out the whole taxation. The hon. and gallant Member, in recommending this proposal, advanced the argument that it applies only to the reserves of companies. I think he would have been well advised if he had not raised that point. Whatever else might be said in favour of the Clause, if it were confined to companies that would condemn it as inflicting a gross injustice upon all business firms which are not public companies, because private firms and one-man concerns are, as compared with joint stock companies, already in a disadvantageous position to-day. His proposal would mean that they would gain no relief on the sums they put to reserve
which were afterwards applied to the purposes of re-equipment or modernisation, yet already the private firm or the one-man concern is in a worse position than the company in that it is liable to Super-tax, and if it be a profitable concern it will contribute to the revenue at a much larger rate of tax than is paid by a public company.
The hon. and gallant Member said his proposal would be an encouragement to saving, and he supported that argument, but what I have already described as an irrelevant quotation from Professor Clay's works. This is not going to affect savings in the slightest degree, because this is a relief upon the reserves of companies; those who provide the capital of the companies, those who subscribe new capital, will not get the benefit of it, but will be taxed for Income Tax exactly as they are at the present time. The hon. and gallant Member spent considerable time in dealing with what the Colwyn Committee say upon this question. I do not wish to say anything that is not fair, but if anyone who had not already read the suggestions of the Colwyn Committee on this matter were to turn to its Report they would find that there was not the slightest justification for the hon. and gallant Member calling in the Colwyn Report in support of his proposal. Quite the contrary.

Major NATHAN: I fully appreciate the attitude adopted by the Colwyn Committee, and I thought I was careful to direct the attention of this Committee to what had been said by the Colwyn Committee, and to point out that my Clause was designed to avoid the dangers and difficulties to which the Colwyn Committee drew attention.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not for a moment agree with the suggestion that the hon. and gallant Member's Clause has got over the difficulty. Nothing could be more emphatic than the condemnation by the Colwyn Committee of the suggestion that company reserves should be exempt from taxation. To use the words of the Colwyn Report, there is a "superficially attractive case" for the exemption of company reserves, especially when they are applied to the expansion of the business; but the practical objections are insurmountable, and if this proposal were adopted it would completely knock
the bottom out of the whole Income Tax system. The basis of the Income Tax system is not quite what the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested it was. It is quite true—this is an essential part of the Income Tax system—that it does not look at how the money is spent, except, of course, so far as indirect taxation is concerned, and neither does it look at the source from which the income is derived, except, perhaps, in the case which the hon. and gallant Member put of the differentiation between earned and unearned income. I could occupy the whole afternoon in quoting the opinions of previous Chancellors of the Exchequer who have had to face this question, but I will only quote the opinion of one Chancellor. The hon. and gallant Member said the Liberal party are not committed to supporting this proposal. What did his own leader say about this—or, rather, shall I say, his leader upon other questions than this? The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), so recently as 1927, in the course of a debate on this great question of the exemption of company reserves, said:
If you begin to say that the purpose for which you use money you have earned is to be taken into account by the Revenue, you will find half your income will escape Income Tax altogether. … There is only one principle upon which you can base your taxation, and that is you tax a man according to his earnings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1927; col. 957, Vol. 208.]
The hon. and gallant Member urged in support of his Clause that we must keep ourselves abreast of the times. That was perhaps the only statement in his speech with which I wholeheartedly agreed, but to what extent is the adoption of the hon. and gallant Member's Clause going to help us more successfully to face foreign competition? It would mean giving a relief of £25 upon every £1,000. Does the hon. and gallant Member maintain that that would give any impetus to industrial expansion? Figures have been quoted which are not quite correct, but those figures show what little effect it would have in stimulating investors. The hon. and gallant Member said I should probably decline to accept his proposal because it was costly. That is one of the reasons why I cannot accept it, but it is by no means the only reason. There is not a single argument that can be advanced in support of this Clause.
I may say that it would cost not £2,500,000 a year but £3,000,000 a year, and is there anyone who will say that a subsidy out of the general taxpayers' pocket of £3,000,000 a year will do anything to improve the industrial position of the country?
This Clause covers ground which will be covered by the next Clause which is to be called, and as I believe there is in the Committee a good deal more interest—more pleasurable anticipation, shall I say?—in the next Clause I will not say very much more on this matter. The proposal is to give a relief of 6d. in the £ from the taxation on company reserves which are applied to purposes he has specified and which he said were limited. When I look at the three purposes I do not see much limitation. This is to be applied to plant—plant covers practically everything; it is to cover machinery; and going even further than the next Clause—it is to apply to buildings. The general taxpayer is to contribute to the cost of the improvement of a company's buildings! Well, I do not know where we are going to stop. We spent a considerable part of the time of the House of Commons a Session or two ago in discussing a Measure for the relief of industry called the De-rating Bill, which is costing the country £30,000,000 a year. I well remember the roseate pictures which were given us; how we were told that it would set British industry on its feet.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We did not know you were coming in.

Mr. SNOWDEN: To-day who is there who can find anywhere the beneficial effects of that relief, although it amounts to ten times more than the relief suggested in this proposal? I have dealt with a point about the injustice of the limitation of this exemption to companies to the exclusion of private firms and one-man concerns. I would like to give an illustration as to how that will work out. Supposing a company had an undistributed surplus of £12,000 a year and they spent £8,000 on plant. In relief of wear and depreciation they get, say, 5 per cent. and they would take that sum at 4s. 6d. in the £. The hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green is asking that they should be given an extra 6d. on the £9,500. If in one year the expenditure
exceeds the amount of undistributed profit, they can carry forward the balance to the credit of subsequent years on the undistributed profit of which relief would be given. I think I have now answered all the points which have been raised in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green. It will be evident that I cannot accept his new Clause, and I do not believe the Committee will accept it. If this new Clause is presented to the Committee as a conscientious attempt to restore industry and a contribution towards the relief of unemployment, then I am afraid I should be inclined to describe it in very forcible terms, because it would be little better than an imposture.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I feel sure that the Committee will share my feelings of regret at the reply which has been made to this Amendment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It all goes to show what I have long realised throughout these protracted debates that the right hon. Gentleman never tries or desires to meet the suggestions of his opponents. The right hon. Gentleman always resents, from whatever part of the House they come, any attempts to co-operate with the Government in framing the financial proposals of the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer contends that great complications would arise if the principle embodied in this Amendment were to be introduced into our legislation. I hope the Committee will not be mislead by that statement. I know how easy it is for high experts at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet any sane and practical proposition which the Government of the day wishes to be embodied in our legislation. All the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman has stated are completely dwarfed by the difficulties presented by large chunks of legislation which are now passing through Parliament. The attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now become an obstinate resistance to any co-operation by the House of Commons as a whole in the financial legislation of the year.
What is the principle which we seek to establish by this new Clause? The hon. and gallant Member who has put this proposal on the Paper has the support of a considerable number of his
own party. It is quite possible that this new Clause could be re-cast with the assistance of expert officials in a better form, and I am quite certain that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to adopt the principle of the proposal, he could easily produce a form of words which would be satisfactory, and which would give the measure of relief to industry which we desire; but the right hon. Gentleman is only aiming at making difficulties. I think he ought to realise how simple is the principle which we are pressing upon him. We contend that the object of the right hon. Gentleman has been wrong in its general emphasis, and has sought to cast its extra burden too heavily upon industry and employment, and to safeguard too jealously the special interests of the rentier class. It is not for me to condemn a strict Debt repayment system, but the question is how to apportion our action to the circumstances of the hour.

Mr. MacLAREN: Deal with the new Clause.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not to be drawn from my line of argument by interruptions of that kind, and, if I am out of order, the Chairman will call me to order. I was explaining the root principle of this Measure. I consider that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid too heavy a hand on industry, and he would have been well advised to have relieved industry to a greater extent, even if he had been obliged to abate his energy in Debt amortisation. This is not the first time that I have put this point before the right hon. Gentleman. There is only one way of doing it. The right hon. Gentleman could express this matter in a much more satisfactory form if he chose to meet us, but he done not want to meet us. We want to have a little less of Potsdam from the right hon. Gentleman and a little more of Geneva. [An HON. MEMBER: "You make us sick!"] I should be sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is going to be sick, but, if that is so, I hope he will withdraw from the Chamber. I am not going to allow any interruptions of that kind to interfere with making my point.
If the right hon. Gentleman intended now to try and take the House into partnership in his Budget, be could do so by accepting this new Clause, which
would only cost him about £3,000,000; or he could achieve the same end by accepting the Amendment which is to be moved later on, and he could undoubtedly find some other means of altering the balance of his Budget without committing himself to any serious loss of revenue. If the right hon. Gentleman would take that course, he would bring the House much more together upon the financial policy of the year than he has done up to the present. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends are pursuing a policy of pure negation, and, consequently, we shall be obliged to record our votes in favour of the new Clause proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). We shall take that course with the conviction that we are striking the right note at the moment, even if the particular form of this new Clause is not all that could be achieved by anyone who had access to the official machinery of drafting. This is a sound and sensible proposal to lighten the burdens of industry, even if the Government have to slow down their debt amortisation.
I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could express our purpose in a better way if he was only willing to do so. When this new Clause has been disposed of, another Amendment is to be moved with the same object in view. Our object would be met if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say, "I do not like either of these two forms of words, but I agree with the object in view, and I will re-shape the Budget so that an extra £5,000,000 or £7,000,000 will be given to this object, and I ask the Committee not to press forward this proposal so vigorously." If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bring forward some other proposal which would effect that end and transfer the sum of money we ask for from one side of the account to the other, our object would be achieved. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to treat us to a "Stone-Wall" Jackson resistance, and merely palm off upon us the stock objections which the Treasury continue to offer to every proposal until they decide to adopt it. If he takes that course, then I am sure he will convince the Committee that reason and friendly persuasion have no effect upon him, and that the only thing he will respect is Parliamentary
force expressed by voting strength after protracted discussion at every stage.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: This is not a new policy in the finance of other countries. In Holland, companies only pay taxes on dividends distributed and never on the money put to reserve. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of his reply, said that the Treasury took no interest whatever in the question of how a man spent his money. I think it would be a very wise thing if more interest was taken in that question. That is one of the things that they constantly use to excite class hatred and raise envy, by pointing out the idle rich, how luxury still flourishes, and so on. One of their favourite things is to point out how people spend money at Ascot and other

such places. Here would be an opportunity for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to encourage people who, instead of wasting their money, or companies which, instead of distributing all their profits, are using that money for the purpose of helping on industry. It may be a small sum, but it would be a very wise principle to introduce into taxation, and I, for one, very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seized his opportunity, because it would be consistent with many of the arguments which have been offered for the purpose of catching votes by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 156; Noes, 278.

Division No. 423.]
AYES.
[5.1 p.m.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Frece, Sir Walter de
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Astor, Viscountess
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Atholl, Duchess of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Penny, Sir George


Atkinson, C.
Gower, Sir Robert
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ramsbotham, H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Beaumont, M. W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Berry, Sir George
Hanbury, C.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Sevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Harbord, A.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hartington, Marquess of
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Boyce, H. L.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Savery, S. S.


Bracken, B.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Briscoe, Richard George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smithers, Waldron


Carver, Major W. H.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Somerset, Thomas


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Chapman, Sir S.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomson, Sir F.


Cowan, D. M.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Tinne, J. A.


Cranborne, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Train, J.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Long, Major Eric
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Lymington, Viscount
Turton, Robert Hugh


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macquisten, F. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wells, Sydney R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Meller, R. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Withers, Sir John James


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Womersley, W. J.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Mond, Hon. Henry
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon Sir L.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morley, Ralph



Fermoy, Lord
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fielden, E. B.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Major the Marquess of Titchfield




and Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mort, D. L.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Moses, J. J. H.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Alpass, J. H.
Hardie, George D.
Muff, G.


Angell, Norman
Harris, Percy A.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Arnott, John
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Murnin, Hugh


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Naylor, T. E.


Ayles, Walter
Haycock, A. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Noel Baker, P. J.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Barnes, Alfred John
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Palin, John Henry


Barr, James
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Paling, Wilfrid


Batey, Joseph
Herriotts, J.
Palmer, E. T.


Bellamy, Albert
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Perry, S. F.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Hoffman, P. C.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hollins, A.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Benson, G.
Hopkin, Daniel
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Horrabin, J. F.
Pole, Major D. G.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Potts, John S.


Blindell, James
Isaacs, George
Price, M. P.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Pybus, Percy John


Bowen, J. W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Raynes, W. R.


Bromfield, William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Richards, R.


Brooke, W.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brothers, M.
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Kelly, W. T.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Kennedy, Thomas
Ritson, J.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Kinley, J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Romeril, H. G.


Burgess, F. G.
Knight, Holford
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Lang, Gordon
Rowson, Guy


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cameron, A. G.
Lathan, G.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Cape, Thomas
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sanders, W. S.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Sandham, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Sawyer, G. F.


Chater, Daniel
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Scott, James


Church, Major A. G.
Lawson, John James
Scrymgeour, E.


Clarke, J. S.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Scurr, John


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Sexton, James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Compton, Joseph
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sherwood, G. H.


Cove, William G.
Lindley, Fred W.
Shield, George William


Daggar, George
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dallas, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Shillaker, J. F.


Dalton, Hugh
Longbottom, A. W.
Shinwell, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Longden, F.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Day, Harry
Lowth, Thomas
Simmons, C. J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lunn, William
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Dickson, T.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Dukes, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sinkinson, George


Duncan, Charles
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sitch, Charles H.


Ede, James Chuter
McElwee, A.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Edmunds, J. E.
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Egan, W. H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Foot, Isaac
McShane, John James
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Snell, Harry


Freeman, Peter
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Mansfield, W.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
March, S.
Sorensen, R.


Gibbins, Joseph
Marcus, M.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Markham, S. F.
Stephen, Campbell


Gill, T. H.
Marley, J.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gillett, George M.
Marshall, Fred
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Gossling, A. G.
Mathers, George
Strauss, G. R.


Gould, F.
Matters, L. W.
Sullivan, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James
Sutton, J. E.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Melville, Sir James
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Cray, Milner
Middleton, G.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mills, J. E.
Thurtle, Ernest


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Montague, Frederick
Toole, Joseph


Groves, Thomas E.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Tout, W. J.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Townend, A. E.




Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Wellock, Wilfred
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Turner, B.
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Vaughan, D. J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Viant, S. P.
West, F. R.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Walker, J.
Westwood, Joseph
Wise, E. F.


Wallace, H. W.
White, H. G.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Wallhead, Richard C.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Watkins, F. C.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.



Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. T.


Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Henderson.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Relief to money expended on plant or machinery.)

For the purpose of calculating the annual profits or gains arising or accruing from any trade, profession, employment, or vocation, there shall be deducted in each of the three accounting periods following the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty, any sums which, to the satisfaction of the Commissioners by whom the assessment is made, can be proved to have been expended upon the purchase, installation, erection, or improvement of plant or machinery with a view to the reconditioning, re-equipment, modernisation, or improvement of such plant or machinery: Provided always that if recourse is had to the benefits conferred by this section, no claim shall be entertained by the Commissioners in respect of the diminished value by reason of wear and tear of the said plant and machinery to the extent of any deduction allowed here-under.—[Dr. Burgin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is described as one providing relief to money expended on plant or machinery. It may be that the suggestion of incorporating into Income Tax law a provision depending in some measure on the purpose for which profits are spent, is unusual and contrary to the stream. We are, however, living in times of very great difficulty, and I, for one, do not hesitate to endeavour to apply a courageous remedy to what I believe to be a difficult position. This is, unblushingly, a purely temporary expedient. It is put forward in the belief—in the sincere belief, may I say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that it would do something to help employment in this country. The Committee will not grudge time spent in discussing a proposal from any quarter of the House which has behind it a desire to help employment in depressed industries.
The method suggested is that money expended on plant or machinery—words which, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, cover almost everything
other than buildings—should be allowed to be deducted from profits in calculating Income Tax. I deal with the question of excluding buildings immediately. Those who framed the Clause were impressed with the fact that you could not very well give relief to everybody who erected a new factory in the year 1930–31 or 1931–32. That would be a wholly haphazard method of giving benefit. This Clause is not aimed at providing subsidies or benefits on a capricious scale; its object may be summed up in one word, "acceleration." It is intended to have as a result large expenditure on re-equipment, renovation and modernisation of plant and machinery; and, in order to bring about a large increase of orders, and, after all, industry is more interested in orders than in tariffs or taxes, the suggestion is made in this proposed new Clause that any person—it is not limited to companies—any business or any person to whom Schedule D applies should, to the extent to which he expends money on plant or machinery, be entitled, in the next three accounting-periods, to quote the wording of the Clause on the Paper, to claim a deduction against his profits, when made, to the extent of that money which is so expended.
I have said that the Clause on the Paper refers to three accounting periods. It may well be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would prefer that the matter should be dealt with for one year, and that, as each Finance Bill comes before the country, the process should be repeated or not according to the experiment of the earlier year. That is a matter of machinery. I am not attempting, in the Clause that I am now moving, to legislate in the actual words in which the Clause is put down, so much as to introduce, expound and debate the idea, which is widely held, that, if you can induce the placing of orders in a slack time of the year, in industries which
themselves are slack, you will achieve double employment, by providing employment in the industries in which those orders are placed and by helping the industries which place them, by re-equipping their plant, more seriously to compete with their rivals.
I should not like it to be said for a moment that I am making any charge whatever of inefficiency against British industries. Wherever you have a craftsman working with an out-of-date tool, it is a misuse of talent and a waste of time and, if there is inefficiency in industry caused by plant not being up-to-date, that is inefficiency which can be remedied by ordering new plant. We wish to provide a stimulus, an inducement, an acceleration of the placing of those orders. If I understand anything of the iron and steel industries, they are suffering from the fact that such orders, as they are, are on differing specifications for relatively small amounts. What an advantage it would be to industries of that kind to have large and substantial orders placed on relatively uniform or defined specifications so that there might be something approaching mass production! The whole idea is singularly attractive. As was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in discussing the previous Amendment, it may well be that the language chosen does but reflect the idea and does not provide in apt terms the way in which it should be introduced into an Act of Parliament. That is one of the privileges that a private Member has, that he can introduce an idea into a Clause on the Paper and provoke a discussion whether or not his words are of sufficient aptitude and precision to be embodied as they stand in an Act of Parliament.
Some of the points that naturally occur to anyone who has any experience of Income Tax practice and of industry combined are these. You are talking of profits. You are using language applicable to Schedule D. You are talking of Income Tax. How will proposals of that kind affect a really depressed industry? If you are dealing with Income Tax, obviously you will never help an industry which is not going to make profits at all.
Let that be quite clearly stated. A deduction against profits for the purposes of Income Tax presupposes that there are going to be in the near future profits against which the deduction can be made. So I say at once that this Clause is not intended to be a subsidy of 4s. 6d. in the £ to every industry to expend money on plant. That is not the object at all. One would hesitate, in the concluding stages of the Finance Bill, to dare to put forward a Clause which had the effect of introducing an enormous commitment of that kind to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nothing of the kind. I am suggesting that, in an industry in which there are profits at present, or in which it is hoped within the period allowed for the re-equipment of the plant there may be some prospect of profits in the near future, you say to that industry, "Take your courage in your hands. Place your orders, bring your machinery up to date, re-equip yourself, compete with the world and, if you do, and make profits, you shall be allowed, as against those profits, first of all a deduction for the amount you have expended on modernising and equipping your plant and machinery." I make that point quite clear, that it is not intended to be a universal subsidy to industry. It is a permission to industry to deduct from profits money which it expends.
May I take another point? How are you to deal with the individual, the industry or the concern which would normally, in the ordinary course of things, be renovating a considerable section of its plant in the next three years? Are you to give it a purely unexpected present? Are you to say to it, "You have had the good luck to postpone the renovation of your plant until 1930. You are, therefore, to be given some additional benefit, but your neighbour who did it in 1929 is to be denied it." I am not suggesting that. I should be quite prepared to accept the suggestion that the relief for which one is asking—again I plead that it is an idea—should be limited to the excess above an average. If you say, "Above an average expenditure in how many years?" I should say we are living in difficult times and that a short period of years would make an unfair average but, if you make your base sufficiently long, if you make an average of five years, one might well be
content to say this relief for which I am asking should apply only to cases above the average expenditure for some such period of time. I mention that merely to show that one is not taking money out of the taxpayers' pocket and giving it to certain specialised recipients. If the Clause errs by making that possible, it is an error that must be corrected in the Clause. It is not a vice inherent in the idea. The idea is simply that we are going to accelerate orders for certain things because you believe that, by those orders being placed, you will help both the industry that wants them placed and the one that places the orders.
It may be said that plant and machinery are difficult words. They are words that are defined in the Income Tax Acts. I have been sorely troubled, in thinking over the Clause, as to what one is to do with one of our most depressed industries—agriculture—in which the percentage of plant is relatively small. If you go to a depressed farmer and offer him an abatement of his Income Tax in respect of a tractor and a new hoe, you will not get as good a reception as if you offered to deduct tax on the various forms of farm buildings that he is putting up. Whether or not it would be possible, as a matter of definition, to say that plant should include agricultural buildings is a matter of technical consideration for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers, and one would accept their answer. If it enormously swells the amount that this relief would call for, one would not ask for it, because it would be impossible. If, on the other hand, it were possible in some way to assimilate agricultural buildings, which really take the place of plant in that industry, it would be an attractive proposal to have agricultural buildings included.
Now I come to the natural question, What would this cost? It is extremely difficult for anyone who has not access to the information in the hands of the Department even to hazard a figure as to the cost of a proposal essentially somewhat vague in its terms such as this, but from questions and answers across the Floor of the House, I understand that an expenditure of this kind might not be at all out of the way, and that a sum, such as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Epping, of possibly £5,000,000 or so might be the amount in the course of a twelve-month. But those, again, are matters on which I, at any rate, have no detailed information. I desire to put forward this idea that, if you can provide some inducement to accelerate orders, you may be very greatly assisting industry at a time of depression. You must bear in mind, in thinking of the period over which the Clause is to apply, that for plant of any value you cannot place your order to-day for delivery to-morrow. A considerable time must inevitably elapse between placing your order and the delivery of the plant. Therefore, it is clear that, in asking for the accounting period of 1930, one must make clear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that one is not asking for any relief in respect of expenditure already made. There is nothing in the nature of retroactive effect in what I am suggesting. One is talking of a forward effect, and if, in that forward effect, you have to make a discount because of the lag between the placing of the order and the delivery of the plant, it is only fair, in calculating the cost, that we should make some allowance for the probable expenditure on plant which could be brought into the accounting year ending March, 1931.
Such is the Clause that I put forward. Plant and machinery, expend your money, deduct your cost from your calculation of profits. That calculation of profits under ordinary Income Tax law will enable you to carry forward from year to year that debit to profit and loss until, under ordinary Income Tax practice, the period has expired within which you are entitled to relief. Such is the proposal of this new Clause. It is an emergency proposal having in mind merely the fact that to alter unemployment yon must provide employment, that the industries in which you want to provide employment are precisely those which depend on plant and machinery, and that the people who will place orders for plant and machinery must be stimulated.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: In the House of Commons, as on every-day experience, expectations are often not realised. I understand that, in the last few days, in places where Members congregate, the main topic of conversation has been the crisis which would eventuate this afternoon.
I am afraid, after the hon. Member's speech in submitting this Clause, there can be no crisis. He has abandoned the Clause altogether, and he has told us three times that he is not submitting a Clause to the House of Commons but an idea and an ideal. It is very difficult indeed to discuss ideals and, while I have every sympathy with what he has described as the purpose of the Clause, whatever may be its shortcomings, I am afraid that the suggestions he has made for improving the situation are not likely to be beneficial if carried. He said he was unblushingly putting forward this proposal as a temporary expedient, that it would not subsidise in any capricious way, that it would bring in a large number of orders and that it could be dealt with in one year. The abandonment of the Clause by the hon. Member, and I assume by those who were supporting him, has relieved me from the necessity of dealing in much detail with his actual proposal, but, as he at times raised points embodied in the Clause, it is necessary that I should deal with them.
What does the Clause do? It proposes that for three years the whole of the capital cost of all plant and machinery purchased for reconditioning and for improvement and modernisation, shall be allowed as a deduction from Income fax. That, I think, is a fair way of putting the purpose of the Clause. There is no limitation in it, although I rather gathered at one point, that the hon. Member seemed to suggest it. Of course, there could be no question here in regard to factory buildings, and moreover the hon. Member raised the question of the inclusion of agriculture, but as that is not proposed in the Clause I need not deal with it. Apart from this, there is no limitation, for it would be impossible to exclude from the Clause anything that was in fact plant and machinery. I will deal with that point a little more fully later on, that is with the universality of the relief that would be given under the proposals as embodied in this Clause.
The hon. Gentleman says that he has made this proposal because he believes that it will encourage the scrapping of old plant and re-equipment. I think that that is a most desirable and most necessary object at the present time. We may
differ as to the best means by which that purpose is to be achieved, but there can be no doubt as to the desirability of doing what we can to attain that object. I said a moment ago that there can be no limitation, because the terms of the Amendment are quite definite. It does not say merely industries It has left nothing out—trades, industries, professions. Then in framing the Amendment, after the phrase had got so far, afraid that possibly they were leaving something out, they added "or vocation." I do not know what is the meaning of "vocation" in this connection; whether it differs from a profession or a trade.
Trade depression to-day is in productive industries, but the subsidy—because it is a subsidy, as I will show later, a bare-faced subsidy, or may I use the word of the hon. Gentleman himself, an "unblushing" subsidy—would apply to the equipment of, for example, an ice cream vendor. [Interruption.] Yes. It would apply to the whole equipment of a factory, and it would apply to that of every trader, and those trades would get the most which were the most prosperous. Indeed, it would apply to banks. Every new counter put in would, to the extent of more than one-fifth of the cost, be paid for by the general taxpayer. It would apply to brewers. Every new vat which was put into a brewery would be provided to the extent of nearly one-quarter out of the pockets of the general taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman, it is true, has put this proposal before the Committee as an idea, but he asks us to translate that idea into a practical scheme.
Let me, in a little more detail, show how the Clause works. At the present time there is a wear and tear annual allowance to cover the replacement of plant worn out. It means that during the life of the plant the State are giving employers or firms an exemption from tax on sums which, if accumulated, will be sufficient at the end of the life of the machine to replace it without cost to the firm. That is the present law. There are two ways of dealing with this wear and tear point, but the statement which I have made just now applies to nearly all cases. But there is a second way, and that is, to allow a lump sum upon the renewal of the plant. Take the case of a doctor. The doctor buys a motor car which is the plant for his work,
and it is recognised as such in the Income Tax law. Therefore, if he spends a sum upon replacing that motor car he is allowed to deduct the capital cost of the replacement. What would happen under this proposal? Suppose that that doctor is a very wealthy doctor in receipt of an income on which he pays a high rate of Super-tax, and suppose that he buys a Rolls Royce car to supersede a worn-out car which cost £800 originally. He pays £2,000 for the new car. He is entitled to deduct £800 as the cost of renewal. What happens under the Clause? He will be allowed to deduct not £800, but £2,000, and on this additional £1,200 he will get relief not at 4s. 6d. in the £, but at the tax which he pays. If he be paying the highest Surtax, the general taxpayer will contribute in all £1,200 to the cost of that doctor's new car.
The hon. Member—and that is the most important point which he made—says that this proposal will stimulate new orders in industry. Plans are not made on one day and carried out the next. Schemes of re-equipment take a long time to mature, and therefore practically nothing in the way of additional orders due to this relief would come into the accounting period of this year. But under the Clause all expenditure which has been made this year would come for relief of Income Tax—the schemes that have already been carried out, money which has already been spent. The hon. Gentleman said that there was nothing of a retrospective character in the Clause. He made the suggestion in his speech that the period might be limited to one year instead of three years. If we did that future orders would not get one penny of relief, and the whole of the money would go to pay for expenditure which has already been incurred and which has already provided employment. The hon. Member gave an estimate of cost, and at the same time he said that it was not such an ambitious proposal as the one to which reference was made in a previous debate, which was the exemption from Income Tax of all company reserves. It goes a very long way.
I do not in the least complain because the hon. Member has not the resources at his command to get a proper estimate of the cost but the cost would not be £5,000,000 a year, as he says. The cost,
at the lowest estimate, would be £30,000,000 a year. [Interruption.] Do not be impatient. The hon. Member who moved this new Clause admitted that the expenditure incurred this year would not result in additional employment. We should get this year, mark you, no relief of unemployment, but they would get £30,000,000—a sheer gift to these concerns out of the pockets of the general taxpayer without the reduction of a single one in the number of the unemployed. What is going to happen next year? Suppose the scheme goes on for three years. I want to make this point clear, that under the Amendment it is not only the excess over the average but it is the whole of the expenditure. The hon. Member agrees. Therefore we should have to continue in succeeding years to give the relief upon what they would have spent in any circumstances. Suppose that this stimulated orders to the extent of £50,000,000 next year, to that £50,000,000 the State would contribute £11,000,000. But in addition to that we should pay the £30,000,000 and therefore in order to get £50,000,000 worth more orders the State—that is the taxpayer—would contribute £41,000,000.

Mr. BRACKEN: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us how he gets those figures?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member said that the cost would be £5,000,000. Suppose that there was an increase of orders, the cost, he admits, would be greatly increased. Suppose that it doubled the rate of new orders. For this £100,000,000, the State would contribute. £52,000,000. It would be £30,000,000 next year without one man being put into employment. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), is he prepared to face next year an increase of taxation to the extent of £30,000,000? Mat would mean an increase of over 6d. in the pound on the Income Tax, and the effect of that on these industries would be to wipe away 10 times over any benefit that might have accrued from such a proposal as this.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the subsidy was not going to be given capriciously. But whether there be caprice or not, the certain result would be that the greater part would go to
those prosperous industries which had ample reserves and which were not in the least hampered for new capital for the purchase of their plant. Only 25 per cent. of it would go to the distressed or depressed industries—coal, textiles, shipping and engineering. A proposal of this sort would not in the least help the cotton trade. They have no reserves to call upon, and anything that they could get from such relief would not touch the fringe of the re-equipment problem with which they are faced. There is, of course, the possibility that some indirect result might accrue to the engineering trade, because if orders were given, the enginering trade to that extent would profit by them. I have said, in contradiction to what the hon. Member said, that the fatal objection to this new Clause is that it is non-selective in its character. It has all the evils of the De-rating Act. I am waiting to hear from the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs all those resources of rhetoric, sarcasm and invective that he hurled against the De-rating Act. This is worse than the De-rating Act. The De-rating Act gave something to both the just and the unjust, but this Clause selects only the unjust and leaves the deserving Lazarus still begging at the door.
Let me deal with what I may call administrative difficulties, and they are serious difficulties. Take the case of what is going to happen in the event of a purchase. "A" sells to "B." "A" has already been allowed a lump sum deduction in regard to the whole cost of the plant. In the latter part of the Clause provision is made for that so long as the plant remains in the same hands. What is to be the position of "B" who buys it? Is he going to be able to claim depreciation during the life of that machine. If he does, what would happen would be this—that we should be paying depreciation on that machine twice over, giving 4s. 6d. in the pound for ordinary wear and tear although we had given 4s. 6d. at the outset on the total cost. Take the case of a new company. Suppose a new company wants a factory. What would they do? I know what I should do if this Clause were the law and if I were engaged in an enterprise of this sort. I should not
build a new factory. I should boy some dud factory and scrap it and then I should be entitled to the full relief of every penny that had been spent in the re-equipment and modernising of that factory.

Mr. CHURCHILL: These are shocking examples for the Income Tax payer.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if I dreamt that there was the slightest possibility of the House of Commons ever giving such an opportunity to the tax grabber, I certainly should not have given that illustration. I have spoken of the difficulty of making deductions for savings in Income Tax returns. The tax should be charged on what a man earns without regard to how he spends it. The proposal in the new Clause violates that fundamental principle of Income Tax law. The right hon. Gentleman opposite on one occasion, dealing, I believe, with the same point, referred to an experience of his in connection with Excess Profit Duty. He admitted that what he did had been a violation of our general taxation canons; he had tried it as a wartime Measure, but he said, "There was very little I got in the way of excess profits."
Having made these criticisms of the proposals I want to say that it is opposed to the whole principle and practice of Income Tax law, a practice which has been built up over generations and is the admiration of every country in the world. We ought not to make any breaches in that law unless they are of a temporary character, of an urgent character and will be beneficial. I have shown already the extent of the benefit if it were carried out on the lines of this proposal.
The hon. Member suggested limiting it to one year. I think he will realise how absurd that would be, from what I have said. Could we limit it to one year? Could we limit it to three years? I am sure that we could not. Having once made that breach in the Income Tax law, it would grow, as the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) said, until the whole edifice was undermined. Take all our experience. The experience of political agitation of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs goes
back to the first Agricultural Rate Relief Act. He knows how that was rigorously opposed by the Liberals. They were going to repeal it when they got into power, but they did not. I remember very well that the attack on the Agricultural Rating Act was the stock-in-trade of Liberal criticism and attack upon the Tory Government of that time. That Act was not repealed. On the contrary, Government after Government had to extend the principle until agricultural land to-day does not contribute one penny to local taxation. Take the De-rating Act. Is it going to be easy to repeal that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Try it!"] Once you have created a vested interest, it is very difficult to get rid of it, especially when large financial variations in the revenue and taxation of the country are necessary if that is done.
Although I have urged these things as cautions to be observed if we are to make any change, if a thing can be proved to be desirable and beneficial I do not say that it should not be considered, but we should have to be very careful. I do not rule out the possibility of doing something on any lines, if it is a sound scheme and if it can be defended. During the past 12 months there has been an impression abroad that I have been a stumbling-block to the expenditure of public money. I have never opposed a single scheme—not one—put forward on behalf of unemployment. If my right hon. Friend the late Lord Privy Seal were here he would confirm that. [HON. MEMBERRS: "What about the late Chancellor of the Duchy?"] I never had any communication from the late Chancellor of the Duchy during the last 12 months. [An HON. MEMBER: "What a cordial Government!"] I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will say that I have been helpful to him in all his schemes.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Hear, hear!

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have opposed, and I shall oppose, any expenditure of public money unless I think it is desirable and necessary, and that the expenditure will be beneficial. I am not going to be any party to the shovelling out of public money which will serve no better purpose than putting men to dig holes and to fill
them up again. The idea in the new Clause put into concrete form is quite impossible, it is full of injustices and anomalies and it would not conform to the dictum and condition that I have just laid down—no ladling out of public money unless we are going to get a return for it, sooner or later. While I have to oppose the Clause, I do not say that my mind is closed. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), an hour ago, for about the fiftieth time during the Committee stage of this Bill, got up and advised me to make a concession. Whenever during the Committee stage of this Bill I have made concessions and accepted Amendments, every concession I have made has been received on that side of the House by taunts and jeers. I have not closed my mind to this or to any other proposal which is put forward professing to be a contribution to the solution of the grave problem of unemployment. I realise that the hon. Member and his friends who have put dawn this proposal have not had expert advice or official knowledge at their disposal, but I recognise that it is an honest and a sincere attempt to make a contribution to the solution of this problem. In its present form, however, it is quite unacceptable, and if I reject it I am quite ready to consider any proposal put forward for the same purpose and in the same spirit.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the whole tone of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been of the same character as the first 99 per cent., I confess that I should have been in absolute despair of ever securing his support to any practical proposal for dealing with the problem of unemployment. I shall point out later that the figures he has advanced are perfectly fantastic. If the facts were anything approximating to those figures there would be nothing for my hon. Friend to do but to apologise for ever having brought forward such a Clause. But I am much more concerned with the last few sentences of his speech. I am concerned with something being done to help in the solution of the problem of unemployment which is growing in gravity week by week. The figures to day are very startling, and there is no Member of this House who will venture to predict that they will not exceed 2,000,000
in the course of the next few months. We are simply putting forward what we conceive to be a contribution to the solution of that problem.
Let me say why it has been advanced at this stage. There has been a good deal of foolish talk about crises and plots to defeat the Government. Neither I nor any of my hon. Friends have the slightest desire to defeat the Government, and I doubt very much whether hon. Members above the Gangway are any more anxious to defeat the Government. There is a good deal of general disquiet and great anxiety and, I am afraid, a general lack of confidence, but, on the other hand, I cannot see any substitute that would give confidence. The country is very perplexed, but it is not exceedingly anxious for a crisis. If anything can be done by any form of co-operation to assist, without provoking controversies and crises—which will not help in a solution—that is what we are trying to seek. The only reason we are putting forward this proposal now instead of later is that this Budget will leave the House in the course of a week or so, and there will be no other Budget until a year hence.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: There are other ways by which that object may be achieved, and, indeed, I doubt very much whether this proposal is appropriate to a Budget discussion.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is bound to be a revenue proposal whenever it comes forward, which means that you must introduce something in the nature of a supplementary Budget. Therefore, I think this is an appropriate occasion on which to discuss it. I am going to discuss only the proposal which has been put forward. If the right hon. Gentleman says that the Clause in its present form goes beyond that—I am not so much concerned with that as I am with the actual suggestion put forward—and that some Amendment is required to ensure that, I would certainly accept it, or even propose it. What is the proposal? It is a proposal that you should strike the average of the money which has been spent during four or five years on replacement of machinery. That is the
proposal; and that is the proposal which I am pressing upon the consideration a the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope he will not consider it in a controversial spirit.
The proposal is that you should first ascertain the average amount expended year to year in replacement and then offer an inducement to firms to anticipate orders and spend above that average in order to provide employment in re-equipment. What does that mean? The right hon. Gentleman says that it would mean £30,000,000 or £40,000,000. Does he realise what that amount means? It means that the orders would be £200,000,000. If you are going to have £200,000,000 worth of orders it would help to solve the problem of unemployment; but if the right hon. Gentleman takes the products of all the engineering firms in the kingdom, including the Rolls-Royce for the country doctor and for the ice-cream merchant, taking them all, the whole of the engineering products of this kingdom, according to the census of production, is £224,000,000. That is the total product for every purpose—plant, machinery, tramways, boilers, everything. At the present moment you have about 758,000 insured in the engineering trades and 100,000 out of work. That means that 658,000 are engaged in turning out this £224,000,000 worth of products. Suppose you were able to offer an inducement which would put the whole of the 100,000 in work, it would mean that the total you could add, if you employed every workless engineer, would be £32,000,000 worth. That is all that would happen.
I do not anticipate all that success from this proposal, but if you do get that success, I should have thought that a proposal to allow Income Tax upon that excess which would provide employment for an extra 100,000 men was a proposal which the Government should consider. What does it mean? It means something like 4s. in the £; the 6d. more or less would cover the annual depreciation which the Government are allowing at the present moment. That means £6,000,000 to £7,000,000 a year, and that £6,000,000 would provide for that excess of £32,000,000, which would give employment to all your engineers who are out of work
at the moment. That is the whole of the proposal that is put forward. I am not so much concerned to answer the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to put, forward a plea, and this is my only opportunity of doing so. Does the right hon. Gentleman forget that since he has been in his present office, if he does what we understand the Government propose to do, he will have borrowed over £30,000,000 to pay allowances for unemployment? The Government, I understand, have already announced their intention, having already added £10,000,000 to the loan, to add another £20,000,000. Will that go beyond three or four months? Are the Government quite sure that in a year's time the amount they will borrow will not come pretty near £100,000,000?
Here is a proposal which, if it fails, will cost the Treasury nothing, and if it succeeds will cost them only £6,000,000 or £7,000,000, and will provide employment for 100,000 engineers who are out of work. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to go to these extravagant illustrations which are on the fringe of the great problem, and to say that this will apply to the ice-cream merchant. If the ice-cream merchant has to pay Income Tax at the rate of 4s. 6d. in the £, he will be in a very big way of business, and, if he can employ engineers—I do not know what his plant and equipment may be—why should be not employ them? There are two things you can do. You can first accelerate and anticipate orders. In doing so you will also expedite the process of rationalisation, to which the Government themselves are committed, and which the two reports they have produced recommend as one of the most urgent and important steps in the way of the recovery of our export trade. You will help to accelerate the process of rationalisation and anticipate work, which will enable you, to a certain extent, to employ people during what is going to be a very black winter.
Nobody can tell when the turn will come. I have seen anticipations that probably next year we may have a recovery, and I have seen others, on good authority, which say that it will take a long time. If we are going to get a recovery in the autumn of 1931 it is important that we should be able to bridge the interval between now and then. I
should have thought that a proposal of this kind, which will not cost the Exchequer anything if it does not succeed, and can only cost them £1 remission for every £5 of work produced, and taking the whole production, will not cost them more than £7,000,000, would receive the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I ask him to get away from that attitude of mind in which he turns down every proposal of this kind. I am really rather in despair about the right hon. Gentleman generally. He is concerned more than I am with the interests of his own party, but I am perfectly certain that behind them are millions of men who are profoundly disappointed with the efforts which have been made. That is not confined to their supporters.
The country would like to see the present Government grapple with this problem with boldness, with enterprise and even with a certain amount of audacity—they would. The country is in that condition when it wants something done. That is the only reason why people are listening to Lord Beaver-brook. They say, "Here is the only man, at any rate, who is proposing something." Believe me—I am speaking in all seriousness—that unless something is done definitely by the Government of the day, the country will grasp at the first silly straw that is offered to prevent it from sinking. I am not really in a mood to provoke crises or to try to defeat the Government; I am rather in a mood to appeal to them, because no one wants to turn them out. [Interruption.] I do not want to provoke controversy. On the whole I think that people are not anxious for a political crisis at this moment. At any rate we who are sitting on the Liberal benches are not. Therefore, I am exercising my right as a Member of Parliament.
Let me say at once, and I am bound to say it, that I find very stupid paragraphs in the newspapers, which imply that the moment I responded to an invitation by the Government to collaborate with them, I ceased to have any independent right to express my opinion at all. I am certain that that is not the view of the Government, and I am sure that it is not mine. The comments go to the extent of complaining that I even expressed a certain criticism about India. If collaboration means that, I am, to
use an Indian phrase, a non-co-operator. We must, and I am bound to, exercise not merely my right but my duty and obligations as a Member of Parliament here when the opportunity comes. I went the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to treat this as a challenge to him, as an attack upon him, or as a criticism of the Government, but as a real and genuine effort to make a suggestion, which, as ha knows, I have not made for the first time across the Floor of the House—a real and genuine suggestion, one out of the many contributions which we hope to make before the next Session begins, towards solving a problem of deep and deepening gravity to the country.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think it is necessary for any protracted debate to take place upon this new Clause, because the issue has been laid very clearly before the Committee by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in the extremely moderate and weighty speech which he has just delivered. The first of the broad issues was already stated by me to be an alteration of the emphasis of the Budget to give a greater measure of relief to industry, even if the process of debt redemption may have to be temporarily slowed down. The other aspect, which has been put forward by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, the Leader of the Liberal party in this House, is that this is upon the whole one of the safest and surest methods of reviving industry and relieving unemployment. All sorts of schemes are put forward to relieve unemployment, some wise and some foolish, and, as has been pointed out, immense sums are being disbursed, not to prevent the evil of unemployment, but merely to mitigate its consequences to individuals. Here, for an expenditure which I have always been advised would not exceed £7,000,000 a year, undoubtedly a stimulus and encouragement would be imparted over the whole of our industrial enterprise. Of course, it is quite true that the actual money value is not the whole of the stimulus. What industry wants to feel at the present time is that the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer wish to come to its aid, wish it well, are anxious that enterprises should be launched and that a stimulus should
be imparted to our production. That the desire which industry expresses at the present time.
I do not think there is very much in the argument that firms which do not make profits, and consequently do not pay Income Tax, will not derive benefit. If they do not have to pay Income Tax they do not suffer the evil from which we now ask that the firms which do make profits should in this respect be relieved. The Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks as if a remission of taxation was a burden to the taxpayer; he speaks of it as if he was throwing a great burden on the taxpayer. But if this expenditure does not exceed £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a year, the mere removal of the extra provision which he has made for the Sinking Fund this year, over and above the German reparations, and over and above the great advantages in the purchase of Treasury Bills—if that £7,000,000 does not exceed it, or practically balances it, no burden whatever is thrown on the taxpayer or on the country. All that happens is that one form of vital initiative which now is singularly under depression and arrest in this island will be relieved from the break or drag which is preventing its full expansion.
The right hon. Gentleman was very scornful of the Amendment. He used a lot of words, taken from his harsh vocabulary, to describe the new Clause in scathing terms. "Ill-considered" and "absurd"—those were the terms which rang in our ears. The Liberal party are responsible for the Amendment, and I believe that they have not put it down without prolonged and careful consideration of its terms on the merits. They have given a great deal of study and attention to this aspect, and it is a proposal which, so far as unemployment is concerned, I am bound to say seems much freer from objections than some others that have come from that quarter. But, at any rate, I see no sort of inconsistency in an Opposition party putting forward a proposal, the purpose and intention of which are quite clearly expressed, and, at the same time, offering to accept from the Government a reasonable measure of amendment of the actual terms or drafting of the Clause. That seems to me to be an absolutely natural, simple and straightforward way of approaching the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman has met these proposals with a dead weight of resistance, in an uncompromising spirit. He has received the requests adressed to him with a dull and stern negation. If he had wished to meet the Committee in any way, to meet those who have put this new Clause on the Paper, he could quite easily have said, "I cannot accept it in this form, but I will engage to give a relief which will not be less than £7,000,000 a year to productive industry, and before the Report stage is reached I will place on the Paper a Clause which will embody this purpose in terms which are acceptable to the Administration and in harmony with the requirements of the Statute." The right hon. Gentleman has not chosen to do that. He

meets us with a steady "No." In those circumstances, while I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and while we have not the slightest desire to relieve the Government from a single hour of the agony and humiliation that they are condemned increasingly to suffer, nevertheless, if Parliament is to take part in the shaping of legislation, it is inevitable that when proposals are put forward which commend themselves to large numbers of Members, those Members should not shrink from giving their vote in accordance with their honest opinion.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 277.

Division No. 424.]
AYES.
[6.27 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Chapman, Sir S.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Christie, J. A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Glassey, A. E.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast. W.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gower, Sir Robert


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Grace, John


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Astor, Viscountess
Colman, N. C. D.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Atholl, Duchess of
Colville, Major D. J.
Gray, Milner


Atkinson, C.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Baillie-Hamilton. Hon. Charles W.
Cowan, D. M.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Cranborne, Viscount
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Beaumont, M. W.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Berry, Sir George
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Dalkelth, Earl of
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Dalrymple-White. Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hammersley, S. S.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hanbury, C.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Birkett, W. Norman
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harbord, A.


Blindell, James
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hartington, Marquess of


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Haslam, Henry C.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Dawson, Sir Philip
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Boyce, H. L.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Bracken, B.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Brass, Captain Sir William
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Briscoe, Richard George
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Elmley, Viscount
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
England, Colonel A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Buchan, John
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Buckingham, Sir H.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hurd, Percy A.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Ferguson, Sir John
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Butler, R. A.
Fermoy, Lord
Iveagh, Countess of


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fielden, E. B.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Carver, Major W. H.
Foot, Isaac
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Ford, Sir P. J.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
O'Neill, Sir H.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Penny, Sir George
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lymington, Viscount
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Power, Sir John Cecil
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thomson, Sir F.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Purbrick, R.
Tinne, J. A.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Ramsbotham, H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Macquisten, F. A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Todd, Capt. A. J.


MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Train, J.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Remer, John R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Marjoribanks, E. C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Mornsey)


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Meller, R. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Mond, Hon. Henry
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Salmon, Major I.
Wells, Sydney R.


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Savery, S. S.
Withers, Sir John James


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Muirhead, A. J.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Womersley, W. J.


Nathan, Major H. L.
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Smithers, Waldron



O'Connor, T. J.
Somerset, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
and Major Owen.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Charleton, H. C.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Chater, Daniel
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Church, Major A. G.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Clarke, J. S.
Hardie, George D.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Cluse, W. S.
Harris, Percy A.


Alpass, J. H.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Ammon, Charles George
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Angell, Norman
Compton, Joseph
Haycock, A. W.


Arnott, John
Cove, William G.
Hayes, John Henry


Aske, Sir Robert
Daggar, George
Henderson, night Hon. A. (Burnley)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dallas, George
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Ayles, Walter
Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Day, Harry
Herriotts, J.


Barnes, Alfred John
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Barr, James
Dickson, T.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Batey, Joseph
Dukes, C.
Hoffman, P. C.


Bellamy, Albert
Duncan, Charles
Hollins, A.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Ede, James Chuter
Hopkin, Daniel


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Edge, Sir William
Horrabin, J. F.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Edmunds, J. E.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Benson, G.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Isaacs, George


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Egan, W. H.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Johnston, Thomas


Bowen, J. W.
Freeman, Peter
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gibbins, Joseph
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Bromfield, William
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)


Brooke, W.
Gill, T. H.
Kelly, W. T.


Brothers, M.
Gillett, George M.
Kennedy, Thomas


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Gossling, A. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Gould, F.
Kinley, J.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kirkwood, D.


Buchanan, G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Knight, Holford


Burgess, F. G.,
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lang, Gordon


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lathan, G.


Cameron, A. G.
Groves, Thomas E.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Cape, Thomas
Grundy, Thomas W.
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lawrence, Susan




Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Lawson, John James
Noel Baker, P. J.
Snell, Harry


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Oldfield, J. R.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Leach, W.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Palin, John Henry
Sorensen, R.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Palmer, E. T.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stephen, Campbell


Lindley, Fred W.
Perry, S. F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Logan, David Gilbert
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Strauss, G. R.


Longbottom, A, W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Sullivan, J.


Longden, F.
Pole, Major D. G.
Sutton, J. E.


Lowth, Thomas
Potts, John S.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Lunn, William
Price, M. P.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Thurtle, Ernest


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Raynes, W. R.
Tinker, John Joseph


McElwee, A.
Richards, R.
Toole, Joseph


McEntee, V. L.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tout, W. J.


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Townend, A. E.


McKinlay, A.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


MacLaren, Andrew
Ritson, J.
Turner, B.


McShane, John James
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Vaughan, D. J.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Viant, S. P.


Mansfield, W.
Romeril, H. G.
Walker, J.


March, S.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wallace, H. W.


Marcus, M.
Rowson, Guy
Wallhead, Richard C.


Markham, S. F.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Watkins, F. C.


Marley, J.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Marshall, F.
Sanders, W. S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Mathers, George
Sandham, E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Matters, L. W.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wellock, Wilfred


Maxton, James
Scrymgecur, E.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Melville, Sir James
Scurr, John
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Messer, Fred
Sexton, James
West, F. R.


Middleton, G.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Westwood, Joseph


Mills, J. E.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Milner, Major J.
Sherwood, G. H.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Montague, Frederick
Shield, George William
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Morley, Ralph
Shillaker, J. F.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Shinwell, E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Mort, D. L.
Simmons, C. J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Moses, J. J. H.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Sinkinson, George
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Sitch, Charles H.
Wise, E. F.


Muff, G.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Murnin, Hugh
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)



Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Tom (Pontetract)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Assessment of agricultural property for the purposes of death and estate duties.)

(1) In assessing the value of agricultural property for the purposes of legacy, succession, or estate duties such value shall be deemed to be a sum not exceeding the net annual return therefrom multiplied by twenty.

(2) In this section the expression "agricultural property" bears the same meaning as in section twenty-three of the Finance Act, 1925, and the expression "net annual return" means the average net annual value under Schedule A for the preceding five years after deduction of any sums allowed for maintenance and repairs.—[Viscount Wolmer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause raises a question which has been at the back of a good many
of our discussions earlier in the Committee stage. I wish to snake it clear to the Financial Secretary that I am not wedded to the wording of this Clause and if there are any points of detail, on which the hon. Gentleman wishes to criticise the Clause as it appears on the Paper, those are points which could be dealt with at a subsequent stage or, if the hon. Gentleman has an alternative draft of his own which he would prefer, I will welcome it if it carries out the purpose which I have in view. It will be seen that the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) has put down a proposed new Clause—(Assessment of agricultural property to estate duty)—which deals with practically the same point. That proposed new Clause is drafted in highly technical language and possibly we may be advised that it presents the right way of tackling this problem. I do not wish how
ever to go into a discussion of the details of the drafting of this new Clause with the Financial Secretary. What I am raising here is an important point of principle, namely, that landowners should not be asked to pay Death Duties on more than the capitalised value of what they take out of their land.
This matter is one of primary importance to the agricultural industry as a whole and I commend the principle which I have just indicated to hon. Members opposite as one which is, in itself, fundamentally just. If a landowner reduces his rents, and employs a large estate staff to keep farms in a good state of repair; if he builds new farmhouses and new cowhouses to enable his tenants to comply with the requirements of the Ministry of Health in regard to the Milk and Dairies Order; if he improves the cottages of the labourers working on the farms without increasing the rents, then, under modern conditions, he makes very little, if anything, out, of his agricultural estate. Yet when he dies the State comes down on his son and says, "It is perfectly true that your father made little or nothing out of this estate, but the estate has been left in first-rate order and it is a valuable property and you will have to pay high Death Duties upon it." I maintain that that proceeding is fundamentally unjust. I ask hon. Members opposite if any of them read an extremely striking letter which appeared in the "Times" of 1st May last from Lord Lothian, in which he gave, in black and white, the facts in regard to the estate which he had just then inherited. Lord Lothian, I may remark, is not a member of the Conservative party. This estate was one of 30,000 acres which had been administered extremely well for 30 years. It covered, on the whole, good land, and, yet the net income throughout the whole of that period averaged less than £1,000 a year. When Lord Lothian succeeded he was required to pay Death Duties amounting to £200,000.
I maintain that that demand is not just, and that the landlord who is put into such a position—and this case is typical of the agricultural estates of this country as a whole—is not being fairly treated. I would put this point to hon. Members opposite who are convinced Socialists. One of their chief complaints against
capitalism is that the capitalist as a rule takes a larger profit out of industry than his fair share. Whether that is right or wrong as a general rule, I cannot discuss here, but I submit that, of all classes of capitalists in this country, it is least true, and certainly not true at all, of the agricultural landowner. The Socialist should regard him as the model capitalist, a man who takes a very, very small share indeed out of the property over which he has charge. Therefore, I put it to hon. Members opposite that they should not discourage a capitalist of this nature, who is rendering a national service and by common consent is taking a very small share of the wealth produced by the land.
But apart from the question of justice, I would particularly ask the Government to consider the effect of these crushing Death Duties on the agricultural industry as a whole. Economic experts who have investigated agriculture are unanimously agreed on the necessity for credit facilities for farmers. The late Government did something to assist farmers in that way, and the present Government, in their election manifesto, promised further to increase those credit facilities. There is no division of opinion on either side about the absolute necessity of easy credit for farmers, but no State credit scheme can be anything like so easy to the farmer as the landlord who is able to give him a, helping hand when he requires it, and I would put this point particularly to hon. Gentlemen opposite, that credit is especially necessary in times of depression.
It is just in these times of severe depression that the farmer needs credit most, and of all the depressions through which agriculture has passed in the last 50 years, in one very important sense credit is especially necessary to-day, for this reason: Owing to the march of science, there is no chance of any farmer being able to weather the storm unless he is able to adopt scientific methods in his farming. That means more capital expenditure, buying new machinery, having new silos, new cow-houses, and the like; and, therefore, it is doubly necessary for the farmer to be able to have credit to enable them to equip their farms under modern conditions to meet the very severe economic strain which is at present falling upon the industry.
I wonder if hon. Members opposite realise what the landowners have done for the farmers in this respect in the past. In all the other great depressions through which the industry has passed—the depression of the eighties and the depression of the nineties—the landowner stood behind the farmers and in a great many eases, by giving them remissions of rent, by loans, and by other means, enabled them to tide over those terrible crises; and the sole reason why the present agricultural depression is so very much more serious than any of the previous depressions is because of the impaired capacity of the landlord to give that assistance which was so readily given in past times. I would like to read what was said on this subject in the Report of the Agricultural Policy Committee of the Ministry of Reconstruction in 1918. It was a very strong Committee, on which members of all parties were represented, and their Report at the time was received with a very large measure of general consent. This is what they said about the great agricultural depression of the nineties:
The classes thus cruelly stricken met the crisis with indomitable pluck. The farmers stuck to their farms so long as any capital was left to them; the landowners were generous in their remissions of rent and, generally speaking, helped their tenants by every means in their power; where no one could be found to take the land, the landowners endeavoured to farm it themselves. Holdings were often thrown together as the only means of keeping the land in, cultivation. It is a fact that many farms in the country were kept in cultivation and the labourers in employment by the farmers and the landowners, at a steadily recurring annual loss to themselves.

Mr. McGOVERN: I beg to call your attention, Mr. Dunnico, to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): There were far more than 40 Members present a few minutes ago.

Mr. McGOVERN: There are not 40 now.

Viscount WOLMER: I was reading—

Mr. McGOVERN: There are not 40 Members present, Mr. Dunnico!

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already said that there were far more than 40 Members in the House a few minutes ago.

Viscount WOLMER: I will resume my quotation:
Many families would be permanently better off to-day if their fathers had at that time allowed the land to go out of cultivation; but the idea was abhorrent to them; and they sacrificed their capital rather than see this happen and the labourers lose their employment. That agriculture, when the tide turned and prices began once more to become remunerative, was in any degree in a position to take advantage of the change, was due to the sacrifices of the labourers and farmers and landowners of that generation.
That is the unanimous verdict of a very authoritative committee, representative of all parties in the State, that inquired into this matter, and I ask the Government what they think will be the plight of the industry if they are going so to cripple the landowners that it will be impossible for them to render any assistance to the agricultural industry in the present very grave difficulties with which it is faced. Let me ask my hon. Friend opposite to consider the case of Lord Lothian's estate, the facts of which were published in the "Times" of the 1st May. There are only three alternatives before him, unless the heir, the man who succeeds to an estate like that, has very large private means of his own. He can either raise this £200,000 by mortgage, or he can sell the estate, or a portion of it, to a profiteer, a millionaire, if he can find him, who is prepared to buy the thing as a toy, or he can sell to the sitting tenants.
Let us see what happens in each of those eases. If the new landowner imposes a mortgage of that scale on the estate, he is crippling the equipment of that estate for a generation. It means that all the money will go to pay interest on the mortgage, that there will be no money to keep the fences and buildings in a proper state of repair, and that the whole estate will go to rack and ruin. If he sells the estate to some gentleman who has made a fortune in the City, he is bringing into the country a man who has not the same love for and interest in the labourers and farmers with whom he has grown up from, boyhood. He is bringing in a man Who probably only wants the estate for its social prestige or its sporting rights, and who has not the traditions—I say that advisedly—of the landowners who have been born and brad in the country and with whom it is second nature to stand by their tenants and employés
in their difficulties. If you ask any countryman, you will find that the new profiteer is not as welcome to the tenants as the old squire, and I am sure hon. Members opposite will feel exactly in regard to that point as we do on these benches.
Then consider the third alternative, that the landowner should sell to the sitting tenants. That means that the farmer ties up the whole of his capital in buying his land, and for his lifetime he is short of capital, which he sorely needs to carry an his business. If the farmer is short of capital, not only does his equipment suffer, not only is he unable to farm properly, but, what is equally serious, he cannot market efficiently, he cannot buy and sell when the turn of prices makes it advantageous to do so. He has to buy and sell at his creditors dictation, and that is the road which has brought many a farmer to bankruptcy. So, if you take any one of the three alternatives that are forced upon the landowner by this crippling taxation, which hears no relation at all to the income which the owner draws from the land, you will find that in every case you are inflicting a most serious injury on agriculture and on the tenant and the labourer.
Then may I take a third point, and that is the question, which I am sure must concern the mind of the Financial Secretary very much, of tax evasion? We all know that there has been tax evasion through these private companies, and the Government in this Bill have endeavoured to stop it. Legal friends tell me that they will have no difficulty in driving a coach and four through most of the provisions that the Government have put into their Bill, and I sympathised very much with the Attorney-General the other night when he expiated on the extreme difficulty with which the Government are confronted in stopping this tax evasion. The Government have singled out the estate companies for special attention, and when I asked the Attorney-General why that was so, he said it was because the estate companies were the most numerous class of private company.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): No.

Viscount WOLMER: If I misunderstood him, I withdraw, but I understood him to say that that was the justification for Clause 30, that the estate companies—that that type of company was one of the most numerous. But the point I would like to put to the hon. Gentleman is that the great majority of these estate companies are formed, not with the idea of evading tax on wealth that is inherited, but merely to avoid paying a tax on wealth that is not inherited. The landowners have asked why they should not pay tax only on what they take out of their property. If we cannot, they say, we will form a company and put ourselves in the same category as Mr. Selfridge, Sir William Morris and any other business man. I maintain that that is a perfectly legitimate standpoint, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman opposite to say that such an attitude is in any way unpatriotic or lacking in the qualities of decent citizenship.
7.0 p.m.
If the Government would accept this Clause, or a Clause having the same effect, they would make three-quarters of those estate companies unnecessary, and they would disappear. The Government would be well advised not to confuse the tax-dodger, whom we all want to get at, with the landowner who is merely trying to put his estate on a business basis. If the Government can eliminate the honest man, they will find it a great deal easier to deal with the tax-dodger. As long as they persist in trying to tax men on a hypothetical sum which will never reach their pockets, which nobody desires should ever reach their pockets, so long they will get every device known to the law used to rescue landowners and their estates and all the people dependent upon them from such a crushing burden and such crushing damage. If the Government would only say that Death Duties should be paid on the capitalised value of what the landowner takes out of land, then they would not only be doing a simple measure of justice to the land-owner, but would remove from the land-owner all incentive to form companies which some people are admittedly using for tax-lodging. They would be doing much more than that; they would be doing something to help agriculture in
the terrible crisis which at present threatens that industry.
After all, this principle of the net income is admitted for income Tax purposes. When a landowner pays his Schedule A Income Tax he is allowed to take the necessary outgoings from his rent, and only pays income Tax on the balance. That is a principle introduced first by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), a principle which has been accepted by the State and regarded as the just principle for Income Tax. If it is just for Income Tax, why is it not just for Death Duties? That is all we are asking in this Clause, that Death Duties shall be paid on the capitalised value of what the owner takes out of the property. I would say to hon. Members opposite that, if they are going to try to insist on getting the pound of flesh out of the landowner, they are going to do more to injure agriculture at this moment than they could by any other single legislative enactment. If they will consent to treat agriculture on the basis for which I have pleaded, they will have done something to help the industry to tide over the terrible crisis through which it is passing. Do not strike a blow at an industry already reeling under world depression.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Noble Lord has put forward a very plausible case for this Clause. I am certainly not going to dispute that there are many difficulties confronting agriculture at present, but I cannot agree with his argument that the principle underlying this Clause is the right way of dealing with those difficulties. He made a number of statements, particularly towards the end, to which I take definite exception. I took down those assertions at the time. He said that the present law of the land involved a tax on wealth which is not inherited. Now, what actually are the facts? Let us take a different example. A man inherits a house, furniture, motor-cars, jewels and furs and for Death Duties all those articles which are not income-producing articles, are valued for the purpose of Death Duties. It would be quite incorrect to say that is wealth which is not inherited. It is precisely the same in the case of a landed estate. A man dies leaving landed property and the heir pays upon the estate which reaches him. There is nothing in the
Noble Lord's proposal to prevent the heir selling the property a week later. The Noble Lord is proposing that, the value shall be a maximum of 20 times the Schedule A value, but there is nothing to prevent the heir selling it at far more than 20 times the value.

Viscount WOLMER: I will deal with that later.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am taking the Clause as it stands. In those circumstances, it is quite improper that he should pay a very much smaller sum than the property inherited. Even if you were to leave that out, still a man inheriting the property inherits all the amenity values with it. Unless you take those at zero, you are bound to take them into account as you do with furs, motor cars and jewels, even though they he not sold by the heir but used for personal advantage and enjoyment. He says the net income is admitted for Income Tax purposes and asks why it should not be admitted for Death Duty purposes. The answer is that the two taxes are admittedly on a different basis. The Income Tax is based on income and the Estate Duty on actual value, and those two are entirely distinct. If you proceeded on the principle that Estate Duty was to be based on the capital value, in some cases it might work out to the advantage of the taxpayer but in many other cases seriously to his disadvantage. Let me go very briefly over the history of this question. When Estate Duty was originally introduced in 1894, there was a provision that agricultural property should be subject to a different method of assessment for value. It was taken at 25 times the Schedule A value. That special relief was removed in the Finance Act, 1909–10, and in that year agricultural estates were placed on the same footing as other property. The late Government, of which the Noble Lord was a member, were in office for five years but never made this change. What they did was to make a concession with regard to agricultural land that it should not be subject to increases in Death Duty which the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) imposed.

Viscount WOLMER: There is another thing they did. They did not interfere with the estate companies. There is a great deal to be said for landowners
putting their estates on a business footing in the form of a company. As long as those companies were not interfered with, there was no particular ground for their doing so.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am not going over all the controversies in Clauses 28 and 29. If the Noble Lord thinks that perfectly legitimate handling of estates is interfered with, he is entitled to raise that, and it can be raised again on those Clauses on Report. I am concerned with the basis of value, and I am pointing out that, though the right hon. Member for Epping was Chancellor of the Exchequer and had five opportunities, he did not alter the basis of valuation of these properties. What he did do was to make concessions to owners of agricultural land that, while he put up the Death Duties on other kinds of property, that should not apply to the agricultural value of agricultural land. Many Members do not realise that, though my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has further increased the Death Duties, the special exemption from increase, which was given by the right hon. Member for Epping, still remains and that, under my right hon. Friend's proposals, there is equally no increase on the rate of duty imposed on the agricultural value of agricultural land.
Let me point out one of the facts which will result from the Clause proposed by the Noble Lord. Schedule A is based on the present user of the land. Supposing, for the sake of argument, there is a piece of land on the outskirts of the town that is ripening for building purposes, but at present is still used for agricultural purposes. The effect of this Clause would be that, on the death of the owner, the maximum value for Estate Duty purposes would be only 20 times its annual value under Schedule A, under its present user as agricultural land. As a matter of fact, a few years after the death of one owner it might sufficiently ripe to be developed for building land—

Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order. Are you, Mr. Dunnico, going to call the next new Clause on the Amendment Paper?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next. Clause is not selected, because it is very largely covered by, and in substance is the same as, the Clause we are now discussing.

Viscount WOLMER: I raised that point, because it specifically deals with the point to which the hon. Gentleman is now alluding, and I hope that you will allow us to refer to that Clause, which is also on the Order Paper and which we are quite prepared to put forward. All those points are dealt with in technical language in the following Clause.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: On a point of Order. Could we not take the first Clause and the second Clause, and in that way discuss the point on the second Clause?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is difficult to allow the hon. Gentleman to discuss a subsequent new Clause while this one is before us, but he would be quite in order in discussing any matter referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary, even if it is raised in the Clause not selected.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am prepared to admit that there are other proposed Clauses on the Paper which cover some of the points which I am making. At the same time, I am asked to discuss a certain definite new Clause, and I am limiting my arguments accordingly. I have already dealt with a number of general points which apply to all these proposed Clauses, and I am now making this point against this particular new Clause that Schedule A applies to the existing user. If, therefore, that is to be taken as the maximum basis for valuation at death under this particular new Clause, it would mean that property that might subsequently be put to much more remunerative use, would pay Death Duty only at the smaller rate. It may be that a course could be found to avoid that, but, as far as this new Clause is concerned, that is an additional reason against it.
I would also remind the Committee that the Colwyn Committee, in paragraph 512 of their report, deprecated the giving of special relief to agricultural land by means of tax remission. We have gone further than that, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping made
a certain remission, and we have continued it, but it will take us a very long way from the whole principle of Estate Duty law if we were not merely to give remissions, but were to take an entirely different value, to neglect amenity value and all the points which make a property of a higher selling value than is recognised by comparison with Schedule A. It would not be possible, without undermining the whole principle of Estate Duty, to begin to tinker with value in that way. That agriculture has some claim for special consideration is already recognised by the particular remissions in rates, but to go to the extent proposed by this new Clause, even with the modifications suggested by later new Clauses, is, I am afraid, impossible.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is an apt imitator of his chief. He learns his lessons with sprightly ease, and he has not been long in presenting us with the proofs of his training. What have we at this moment? Another of those disagreeable legacies, and the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary continue to obstruct with a resistance which is sometimes backed by a wealth of argument, and at other times finds no stronger support than the kind of speech to which we have just listened from the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman says that in the five Budgets that I presented I did not alter the principles of valuation in regard to landed property. That is quite true, but if he will study the records of the Treasury, he will find that I made something like this proposal at the same time that I proposed to deal with the evasion of Death Duties. I thought that the evasion of Death Duties should be stopped, and we have assisted the Government to stop it in this Bill—[Interruption.] Well, the Government have accepted the Amendments which we have proposed. They got themselves into a hopeless muddle, and, in spite of all the assistance which they received from the permanent officials, their own brains were not so well addressed to the subject as to enable intelligible Clauses to be presented, and we therefore came to their aid.
At the time when the late Government proposed, in 1928, to prevent the evasion
of Death Duties by Clauses which would have the same intention as those of the right hon. Gentleman, but which would have been more carefully drafted, I proposed to my colleagues in the Cabinet that we should relieve agricultural estates from what is undoubtedly a grossly unfair incidence of taxation. Why has there been this attempt to evade the Death Duties? It is because the taxation upon this class of property is grossly unfair. Here you get an immense capital drain or draft upon an estate, which might come at frequent intervals, and you calculate its value on a basis which in no way corresponds to the commercial value. What is all this talk about placing the burden upon the shoulders which can bear it? What is all this talk about the principle of the ability to pay? You have an estate which produces, we still say, £1,000 a year, and it is valued at twice or three times the capital value which would produce £1,000 a year. Why is this excessive and inflated value imposed on these estates? It is because from all parts of the world, and from all parts of the country, the new rich, the profiteering class, come and force up the price of these old homes of England, and exploit the amenity value because they are anxious to seat themselves in the baronial chairs, or to invite their friends to sit in the halls which have enshrined many generations of those who have played a recognisable part in the history of the country.
Why should you market that? Why should you make a son ransom his own home in these commercial times against the bid of all and sundry coming from all parts of the world? Let him pay on what he receives; let him pay to the full without evasion his share of the national expenses from the actual funds and revenue of which he has the enjoyment. To compel him to ransom the amenity value of his own home in the open market in this modern, confused, disorganised world, where so many true values have been destroyed, and where the power of money asserts itself with more naked force every year—why should we compel him to do that? It is a gross injustice. Of course, the Socialists, who wish to level everything, who regard the glorious history of the past as if it were merely a series of disgraceful chronicles of pillage and exploitation, who wish to cut themselves
adrift from the continuity of our history and the traditions of British life, to start a new life, like the Soviet Government, on an entirely different basis of ethics, of politics, of economics and of history—from their point of view one can understand that they view with great satisfaction the installation in an English country home of some prosperous pork butcher from Chicago, or some gentleman who, instead of serving his country in the War, piled up a great fortune by the rapid inflation of capital, or by the successful promotion of enterprises of doubtful soundness. These are the heroes whom they wish to esconce in houses which undoubtedly are honourably interwoven with the history of our country.
I make this appeal on the broadest lines. Nothing is more remarkable than the rapidity with which the new democracy is squandering the treasure and the Empire created by generations of the aristocracy and oligarchy. It was said in the days of the great Lord Chatham that you had to get up very early in the morning to know when there was a new victory; but now you have to get up very early in the morning to know what promise has been given away, what great interest has been squandered, and what great security of the nation has been destroyed. From your own point of view, surely you should tax the money; you should not tax the non-material values. I am only suggesting that there should be applied to landed property the principles conceded by all parties to heirlooms, pictures, works of art and so forth. It is true that we have framed our new Clause to apply generally to all estates, whether passing by sale or succession. If the Government wish to meet us, and if they wish to limit it to estates passing by succession, we should regard that as a satisfactory settlement of this matter. If a man sells his home, he shows that he is regarding it upon a commercial basis, and he should be taxed upon that basis, amenity value as well. If, however, he only wishes to live where his family has lived for generations, it is monstrous that the actual benefit which he enjoys should be overloaded by an enormous super-added weight of amenity value, which is largely arbitrary in its estimate, and to the fixing of which an
element of predatory snobbishness undoubtedly enters.
I have a word or two to say to the Financial Secretary and his friends about this. I have no doubt that they are all looking eagerly for their holidays, and will be very glad when the House of Commons, to the existence of which they owe their political positions, will have released them from its somewhat sharp talons; when they can have some breathing space before we begin our conflicts in the autumn. I, too, am anxious to have some rest, and so are my friends on this side, but we have not devoted all this time and attention to the Budget without the intention of obtaining some definite results. An hour or two ago we tried to obtain some results by the use of the weapon of a Parliamentary majority, but, unhappily, that, was not entirely at our disposal. The right hon. Gentleman has no particular reason to sleep soundly in his bed o' nights as a consequence of anything that may have occurred to-day. That issue hangs over the Chancellor of the Exchequer until the Report stage of this Measure has been passed. With regard to this Clause it is quite true that we have not at our disposal the weapon of a majority, nor the possibility of acquiring such a weapon. I quite agree that the Government can vote us down, can treat us as they have treated us on other remonstrances we have addressed to them, with lofty disdain.

Mr. MARCH: We had four years of it.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): Why did you not do this when you were in office?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have explained that it was linked up with another proposal and as I could not put forward the one I left out the other—entirely because of the pressure of time and the amount of work there was upon We had very heavy Budgets in those days. We had great constructive schemes, like the Widows' Pensions scheme and the De-rating Bill. We did not send round for a Treasury Clerk and ask him, "How much do we get with 6d. on the Income Tax and is on the Super-tax?" and then take another £20,000,000 out of Death Duties. We did not make up our
Budgets in half-an-hour and on a half-sheet of note-paper, as this botched and mis-shapen production was drawn up. We took trouble in those days, and that is why our Budgets were so heavy—loaded, densely packed with carefully thought-out well-intentioned, bene-ficial—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is making a Third Reading speech.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was only responding, perhaps at somewhat too great length, to a rather provocative and to me personally wounding interruption. However, I leave that point, mindful of your remarks, and say to the hon. Gentleman that if he gives us no consideration upon this Clause he will not accelerate the course of business. Of course I, like him, am entirely dependent upon the support of others, and with this hot weather, and holiday time approaching, I do not know whether I shall find the same active and ardent assistance as has hitherto been forthcoming on the Budget; but if we are to be treated with absolute scorn, then I will make it my business, if I can get anyone to stand by me, to examine in meticulous fashion the whole process of the Budget during the Report stage. The hon. Gentleman might just as well address himself to this proposition. I warned his chief a week ago that he would run grave risks, would lead his party into grave risks, if he did not attempt in some way or other to meet the wish of the House on the question of giving relief to industry from its present burdens. It is open to him to alter this Clause if he chooses, and to say that he will give the relief only when estates pass upon succession; and unless he does something of that kind he will pay in tears and beads of perspiration, in laborious days and protracted nights, for an obstinacy not founded on any real necessity of the State but arising largely from the temperamental manifestation of the none-too expansive nature of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Captain BOURNE: I much prefer the next Clause to the one which has been moved by my Noble Friend, but as that is not coming before the Committee I must make such remarks as I wish to on
this Clause. I was disappointed with the reply of the Financial Secretary. He seemed to produce the stock Treasury reply and largely ignored the heart of the problem. The principle of the Death Duties—if there is such a; thing—was laid down in the Finance Act of 1894, and if the hon. Gentleman will consult that he will see that settled property paid Death Duties only on determination of the settlement, namely, when some owner came into it who could sell under the terms of the settlement. As far as agricultural land is concerned Death Duties are paid at rather long intervals. Before the War the return on agricultural property was very low indeed compared with the return which could be obtained on any other form of property, and consequently the valuation for Estate Duties was high even then, far higher than—n the case of an investment in a Government security or stocks and shares, but the infrequency of the incidence of the duty in the case of settled estates did a great deal to mitigate the way in which this duty fell upon agriculture.
The situation was altered by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and I think this question would have arisen in an acute form at a much earlier date had it not been for the intervention of the War, which swept this and so many) other problems aside. There can be no doubt that the pressure of Death Duties on agricultural estates has been one of the contributory factors of the agricultural depression. The return which the owner of an agricultural estate gets upon his capital is very low—I doubt whether it exceeds 3 per cent.—but when he dies he is taxed on a value which is a very high one. When dealing with ordinary investments the market price represents about 20 times the annual return, taking that at 5 per cent., but in the case of agricultural land the value put upon it may be something like 40 years' valuation of the annual income from it. For Income Tax purposes the land is given an entirely imaginary value. Under Schedule A a valuation is put down, certain deductions are made, and then there is an arbitrary allowance for the amount which in the opinion of the Government should be spent on repairs, but anyone who has had any experience of estate management knows that the actual expenditure
per year on repairs is vastly greater than the amount allowed under Schedule A.
I doubt whether there is a single decently managed estate in the United Kingdom which does not, year after year, submit to the Commissioners of Income Tax larger claims in respect of maintenance and repairs than are allowed under Schedule A, although permissible under the Income Tax law. What we claim is this Clause is that when agricultural land which has not been sold is being valued the value should be reckoned as so many years' purchase of the net annual income that the owner receives. Much of the money which he receives from the estate has to go back into the estate in payment for repairs, the fertilisation of the land and the maintenance of hedges, gates, and farm buildings, and we claim that after making allowance for this expenditure the actual return on capital is a very meagre reward for the services which are being given to the community. So long as he retains this land in hand he should be taxed merely on so many years' purchase of the net annual value, and not on some imaginary figure which somebody thinks the land might fetch if sold in the open market. Even where the sale value is taken the valuation is not always a good one. I believe it is the practice to value each farm separately, whereas if an estate is sold as a going concern the market value is very much less than if it be sold farm by farm.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the inheritor of agricultural land should not pay for the amenity value, but does he realise that the value of agricultural land is artificially enhanced because of the very sales which take place when portions of an estate have to be put on the market in order to meet the claims for Death Duties? To the tenant or occupier a farm has a value in excess of the market value of the land. He has farmed the land, he has got his stock on it, he has had experience of the farm, and he is ready to pay a higher price for it in order to avoid the disturbance which would follow if it were sold over his head with, perhaps, a forced sale of his stock and implements. He knows that if he goes to another farm he will have to spend two or three years in learning the best use to which each of his fields can be
put, what are the best methods of cultivation and what are the best crops to grow. For a sitting tenant, therefore, a farm has a value in excess of what it possesses for anybody else, and in the case of a sale of the estate he is prepared to pay a higher price for that farm than anybody else—unless the other bidder who runs him up is some fool who has made money in other walks of life and thinks he would like to spend it in farming. There is, therefore, a good case for reconsidering the basis of the valuation of land for Death Duties. If the land is sold Death Duties should be charged, I agree, on the market price; if a man sells it in his lifetime we could treat the transaction as sales of timber or heirlooms, for example, are treated and charge him on the difference between the value at which he inherited it and the price at which he sold; but if we are to keep up the equipment of the agricultural land of England one of the essential things is to stop forced sales every time an estate changes hands.
At the best this form of duty is unequal between family and family. One family is long lived and marries late in life; there may be intervals of 40 years between deaths. In another family deaths follow in quick succession. A man who has stocks and shares can sell half of them and live on the rest, but the landowner knows that selling off a small or a large portion of his estate does not really tend to economy. There are still many fixed charges which bear heavily on the truncated estate remaining. To run an estate cheaply it is desirable that the landlord should employ his own people to do repairs, his own woodmen to look after the forests, and his own men to carry out drainage work and with a very small estate that cannot be done. If he has to import builders from a town he is charged a higher price because so much of the time of the workmen is occupied in moving to and from their work, which is not title case if estate workmen are employed. I feel that this policy of singling out the Death Duties for extra taxation has done much to add to the present agricultural depression about which we hear so much to-day, and I ask the Government for these reasons at least to reconsider the position.

Lord STANLEY: I rise for the purpose of supporting this new Clause. The most
distressing feature of the agricultural position to-day is that the landlords are not in a position to farm their land as well as they would like to do. Most of them are losing money on their farms and, in consequence, they are obliged to sell their estates. That must be a very bad thing for agriculture, because they are the men who have been brought up on the land, and they possess the technical experience which is of such great value to agriculture. By this Budget you are deliberately helping to take away capital from agriculture. You cannot help the farmers having bad years, or receiving low prices, the result of which is loss of capital and the inevitable sale of their farms; but you can prevent the deliberate breaking up of big estates owing to the false values which are put upon them when they are assessed for Death Duties.
Why are you treating agriculture in a different way from any other industry? Why have the Government taken this vindictive action against landlords large and small? Surely the tendency in every other industry which has been helped and encouraged by the Government is to see that they become co-ordinated into larger units. The principle of the rationalisation of industry is that small businesses should be amalgamated into larger units so as to lower the cost of production and overhead charges, and in that way put them on a more satisfactory business footing. Why do the Government not adopt the same policy with regard to agriculture? At the present time with large estates the overhead charges in agriculture are as low as possible, and yet you are deliberately breaking up these estates into smaller units where the overhead charges and the cost of production will be higher. I cannot see why agriculture should be singled out for this exceptional treatment. I agree with what was said by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer that people ought to be taxed according to their ability to pay, but the Government ought to consider what advantage any particular tax is likely to be to the State. Who is going to get the advantage out of the heavy Death Duties on agricultural land? The State will reap no advantage, because all you are doing by this policy is mortgaging the future.
The State may get a larger amount for a few years, but consider what the State is losing. Another point to be considered is that the owner of a large estate collects the rents, and he pays Income Tax and Super-tax, and in that way he is acting as a cheap tax collector for the Treasury. Another matter which I would like to point out is that when you get an estate in one man's hands collecting the rents from a large number of tenants, that man probably pays Super-tax, but when the estates are broken up the taxation which will be paid by the tenants will be so small that it will be scarcely worth the cost of collection.
I cannot see how a policy of that kind is going to be of any benefit to the Treasury, and obviously it cannot benefit the tenant. We have heard it stated that a tenant is better off farming under a landlord than farming his own land. The bad landlords are really more or less fictitious at the present time. Unless a landlord is a good landlord and farms his land well, he cannot make his estate pay. It is to his own advantage, as well as the advantage of his tenants, that landlords should keep their farms up to as high a state of perfection as possible. Under the system by which the tenants purchase their farms they will lose the advice of the first-class agent employed by the landowners, and those tenants may have to pay a considerable sum of money down in order to buy their own farms, whereas under the landlords they have to pay only a reasonable rent without raising any capital.
When estates are broken up and the farms are placed upon the market, the farmers have to pay a large capital sum which they cannot afford, and this cripples them considerably in the future conduct of their business. By imposing these heavy Death Duties you are not helping agriculture. One of the essentials of successful farming is the development of agricultural research and experimenting on scientific lines. No farmers on a small farm can afford to do research work, because they do not possess the necessary amount of land for the purpose, and they have not the necessary capital. Consequently you have to rely very largely on the activities and enterprise of the landowner to do a great
deal of the research work which would otherwise have to be done at the expense of the State.
How is the community going to benefit by the abolition of landlords? I submit that landlords are a much abused class. It is very easy for speakers who wish to preach Socialism or Communism to abuse landlords. But when those people have been returned to Parliament the first people to whom they go for help are the landlords. We are doing a great disservice to the community by doing anything that will tend to abolish landlords, because they perform very useful services to the State in a purely voluntary capacity. Not only do they carry out useful research work, but they give their services on public bodies. Frequently they are elected as county councillors and members of other public bodies. The policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is driving these men from the countryside, and the effect will be to destroy English country life.
I know that it is like drawing blood out of a stone to expect a reasonable answer to these arguments from the Treasury. I ask the Government to deal with this question not merely from the necessity of getting money for the Treasury. We all realise the difficulties of raising revenue, but I would like to put it to the Government that they are losing, on balance, by raising this money out of agriculture, and they are doing harm which can never be undone. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot give us a satisfactory answer, I hope he will be able to assure us—although I do not believe that there will be another opportunity for hon. Members opposite to put forward another Budget—that on some future occasion he will be able to show agriculturists a little more consideration than he has done in the past.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: I approach this matter almost entirely on behalf of British agriculture, because I want to keep in existence the old type of agricultural landlord in this country. I cross swords with the Noble Lord the Member for the Fylde Division of Lancaster (Lord Stanley) on one point in which he said that the tenant is better off under a good landlord than farming
his own land. I suggest that the tenant would rather be under a good landlord than own the land himself, and it is because taxation is compelling the tenant to buy the land and become his own landlord that I wish to keep the tenant under the old-fashioned agricultural landlord, who has done so much for him in the past. I listened with some attention to the speech made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who said that in this matter he was concerned more in regard to the basis of value. I am concerned more with the basis of taxation. The landlord is a partner in productive agriculture.
8.0 p.m.
Agriculture is an industry in which there are at least three partners—the agricultural labourer, the farmer, and the agricultural landlord. The agricultural labourer is entitled to as much consideration as any of the other partners, but he cannot efficiently perform his duty unless he is properly paid, clothed, and housed, and we must treat him well and give him opportunities of becoming a small farmer. It is essential for the farmer to carry on his agricultural functions in co-operation with the other two partners in the industry. The third partner is the agricultural landlord, and if he is unable to function properly as a landlord, undoubtedly agriculture suffers. It is the duty of the agricultural landlord to keep in repair the building on his land. It is also his duty to look after the ordinary drainage and the arterial drainage of his land. If the agricultural landlord is unable to perform those functions, the whole industry of agriculture suffers. We must bear in mind the fact that, in this self-contained industry of agriculture, the whole of what comes into the industry comes from the sale of agricultural produce. If, as at the present time, sales of agricultural produce are down, there is less money to meet the necessary costs of the practice of agriculture. The farmer is unable, therefore, to pay, as he ought to pay, the wages of his labourers, and at the same time he is unable in many cases to meet his landlord—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This discussion is becoming very broad and general. The question before the Committee is the assessment of agricultural
property for the purpose of Death and Estate Duties, but we are entering into a general discussion on agriculture.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I will confine myself to the third partner in the industry, namely, the agricultural landlord, who, by excessive taxation, is being prevented from functioning. The effect of Death Duties upon the agricultural landlord is to deprive him of using the money which is now paid in taxation for performing those duties which the agricultural landlord should perform, in repairing buildings, maintaining ditches and drainage, and so on. As was mentioned by my Noble Friend who moved this Clause, these Death Duties compel an agricultural landlord to do one of two things. He either has to insure against these Death Duties, in which case the insurance premiums themselves represent a withdrawal of money which otherwise would be used for improvements, or he has to sell portions of his estate.
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the value of an estate is the value which it might make in the open market, but I am anxious to preserve the original agricultural landlord. I hold no brief for, and have no sympathy with, the profiteer who comes in from a large industrial centre and buys an agricultural estate for amenity purposes. That man does not function as an agricultural landlord; he does not know his job, and does not do his job. I want to maintain in existence the old type of agricultural landlord, who acted as a partner in the agricultural industry. As I have said, the landlord, if he does not provide by insurance for these Death Duties, is obliged to sell his estate, or a part of it. If he sells a part of it, he compels a farmer to come into the market and buy the land. That is another direction in which a partner in the agricultural community is penalised, by being compelled to purchase his farm, often in competition with the profiteer at an excessive price. That farmer's money, which ought to be used as capital for his farming operations, is being used to capitalise the land, and the land, consequently, suffers from the want of capital for farming operations. We have seen this summer that many owners of agricultural estates have opened their gardens to people going there in motor
charabancs, and those people from industrial areas have much appreciated that kindness. I want to preserve in this country these old landlords, and for that reason I heartily support the proposed new Clause.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not want to curtail the discussion, because I realise that hon. Members opposite feel very keenly on this matter, but the time is going on, and there was a sort of undertaking—I will not put it higher—that we should finish this part of our business within a reasonable time after half-past Seven, in order to make way for the other important business that we have to-night. Therefore, although I do not want to ask hon. Members unduly to limit the discussion, I hope that they will be as brief as they can, consistently with saying what it is necessary to say, in order that we may end this part of our discussion sufficiently early to give us plenty of time to take the other business to-night.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: My understanding—I speak subject to correction—was that our arrangement was that we should come to an end of our business tonight on the Finance Bill somewhere about Nine o'Clock or half-past Nine.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Perhaps I might just explain. It was suggested that it should be concluded by 7.30, but my right hon. Friend pointed out that that would not allow sufficient time, and he suggested half an hour longer, or a little more. I will not say that that was definitely accepted; I do not want to put too high a point on it; but there was an understanding that at some time, not much after Eight o'clock, this part of the business should be concluded, with a view to our getting on to the other very important business. There was a quite definite understanding that the other business before the House should be finished to-night, and, if we carry on the present discussion too long, it may restrict the time available for the other business more than, perhaps, hon. Members who are interested in that part of the proceedings would like. Therefore, while I do not want to put it too high, I hope that we shall not be very much longer on this subject.

Lord E. PERCY: It is, perhaps, a little difficult to discuss what precisely was the understanding in the absence of both the original channels, but I think the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that it is our object to leave sufficient time for the settlement of the next business to-night, and we are only "spreading ourselves" on this particular Clause because it is one which interests us very much indeed, and we think that it would be a great help. I think the time that will be necessary for completing the rest of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill is very small indeed; I think that there is no other Amendment to come, and that this is practically all that we have to do.
I desire, in spite of what the Financial Secretary has said about not wishing to prolong the discussion, to appeal to him to give some better considered reply to the three very interesting speeches which have just been made than he did when he originally replied to my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). Really, if one could for a moment associate the Financial Secretary with flippancy or frivolity, one would be inclined to say that his arguments against this proposed new Clause were almost frivolous. What were the arguments that he advanced against the general principle of the Clause? One was that it would be a departure from the existing principles of Estate Duty legislation. Why is it necessary for a Labour Government, above all, to advance as an argument again and again that something would be a departure from the existing system, from the hallowed and time-honoured departmental principles which have been handed down from generation to generation? Surely, one would expect from this Government more than from any other a desire to look at things on their merits.
When the Financial Secretary talks about the principles of Estate Duty legislation, surely he recognises that there is no financial legislation in this or any other civilised country which is so exposed to fundamental attack on purely economic grounds as is Estate Duty legislation. It sins against almost every one of Adam Smith's principles of taxation. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would be bold enough to attempt to reconcile the present Estate Duty system
with any single one of Adam Smith's great principles of taxation, and, therefore, really, that argument is almost frivolous. How do Estate Duties affect agricultural land, which is, in fact, a great national business and a great national going concern? Surely, we ought to look at the problem in that way, and not to talk about departures from, the principles of Estate Duty legislation.
The second argument of the hon. Gentleman is far more significant, and far worse. He asks how does this valuation of agricultural land differ from the valuation of furs, or pearls, or diamonds, or expensive old furniture, which are valued on their market valuation, although they have only an amenity value, and the value upon which they are taxed is very much greater than, perhaps, their intrinsic value may be? They are valued in that way because they would fetch a certain price in the market if they were sold. Does the hon. Gentleman really think, however, that furs, and pearls, and diamonds, and old furniture are proper analogies with the ownership of agricultural land? It is that attitude towards the ownership of agricultural land which we are attacking, and which has done so much harm, to the whole industry of agriculture—the idea that a ploughed field is to be regarded for the sake of its luxury value, its sporting rights, or the nice views that can be had from the rich man's drawing room, and not as a business asset, not as a responsibility which the landlord holds, and for which he is answerable to the State. If we could go back to a rather more feudal conception it would be better.
The hon. Gentleman looks at the matter as so many other people do, merely from the point of view of agricultural land being valued in the market. Surely, if he does take that old Etonian view, he must see that the analogy which he has drawn is rendered entirely invalid by the process of reasoning. Diamonds, pearls, or old furniture are, after all, luxuries which a man can use, and to which he can attach value because he uses them in his daily life. The fact that they are assessed at their market value simply means that to take the market value is about the only convenient means of assessing the value of such luxuries to the man who can use them. But he cannot use agricultural land in
the same way. It can, of course, be used for sporting purposes, or it can be used for the purpose of a nice view from a drawing room window, but the real purpose, the real, intrinsic raison d'être of agricultural land is not to be used in that way.
Push the reasoning a little further. Why do you apply this principle of levying Estate Duty only upon sale to works of art? They are luxuries, like diamonds and pearls, yet you deliberately exempt them from assessment. What is the reason? If the principle the hon. Member lays down is the real principle of the Estate Duty, that you should tax luxuries on an artificial value, why do you exempt works of art? Surely it is mainly because you do not wish the owner to regard them as saleable commodities. You want to encourage him by every means to keep them. Is not that precisely what you want to do with agricultural land? Do you not want, by every means in your power, to encourage the owner of land not to part with it as a luxury asset, but to keep it as a business asset, earning a very low rate of return for himself if any at all? If you hold the views of certain Members opposite, you may wish him to get rid of it and sell it to the farmer at a low price for agricultural purposes, but you do not wish him to sell it at an inflated price which the tenant could not afford to pay. If that is your policy, if you want the landlord to keep and hold the land until he is prepared to sell it at a low price that the tenant can afford to pay, surely you want to treat land precisely as you treat works of art. That is the true analogy.
We feel strongly about this, because I do not care one little bit whether the old social aristocratic structure goes on or not, but I am concerned with this, that when you have a great national industry like agriculture, your taxation should not be such as specifically and deliberately to make the continued conduct of that business more and more progressively difficult year after year. If it were not that the landlord belongs to quite a small class, against which there is a good deal of prejudice, no one would have dreamt of subjecting him to a form of taxation so uncertain and so unequal as between taxpayer and taxpayer—I will not run through all the other canons of Adam Smith's ideas of taxation—no one
would have dreamt of maintaining so impossible a system of taxation, and when we are increasingly realising now that what we are taxing is not a small class of landlord but the industry of agriculture, surely the Financial Secretary ought to show that he has devoted serious attention to the problem of agriculture as an industry from the point of view of these taxes.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I should not have intervened in the debate but for the fact that I have sat here for some time and have listened to an array of Lords in defence of their rights, and I admire the way they fight for their rights and for their class. But I hope the Financial Secretary is not going to be carried away by the appeal they have made on behalf of their class. They have made out the case of the nice old-fashioned, landlord. That is the language. How good they were to the tenants! In fact, the Noble Lord who has just sat down said he would not suggest that we should go back to feudalism, but he could recommend it. Another Lord said many tenants would rather have a landlord than no landlord. They would rather be slaves than free men. That is what it amounted to. You cannot have it two ways. But no one knows better than the Financial Secretary what is the actual position of these poor tenants, under the heel of the landlord, particularly in England where, when an election is on, they have not a soul to call their own. Every Labour Member who comes from an agricultural constituency knows that that is the fact. I can go back for 35 years to a Royal Commission on the agricultural situation in England and on it sat the grandfather of the present Prince of Wales. He was the Prince of Wales of that time, and Lord Methuen gave evidence before that Commission. This is your nice kind landlord. Fourteen shillings a week was the wages paid. The Prince of Wales said, "That is a starvation wage." Lord Methuen's rejoinder was that it was constant.

Mr. TURTON: I have not heard in the speech of the Financial Secretary, or in that of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), any justification for the present basis of valuation for Estate Duty of agricultural land. It is the value that a commissioner
puts on as being what it will fetch in the open market. The Financial Secretary talked a great deal about amenity value. It is not a question of amenity value. It is a question of the value that an urbanised official will put upon agricultural land as being in his estimation the value it would fetch in the open market. He must know that land cannot be sold at present in the open market. He must know that the Exchequer themselves refused last week to purchase Scottish land.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Because of the price.

Mr. TURTON: The same price that the Exchequer will not pay it tries to force the inheritor to pay as Estate Duty. I am not asking for justification, I am asking for justice.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The facts are these. We were quite prepared to buy Ben Lomond from the Duke of Montrose, who is a robber, on the distinct understanding that the purchase price was the price at which it was assessed, but he wanted 523 times more.

Mr. TURTON: The hon. Member has, naturally, tried to justify the Government in their bidding for a Scottish estate, but he cannot get away from the fact that the Exchequer would not pay the amenity value, and an amenity value cannot be got for that estate at present. The Government tried to buy at a price based on the real annual value. They are trying in this Bill, on the other hand, to charge the amenity value. As is usual, the hon. Member has made aspersions on certain Members outside the House. I am not going to follow him there. I want to take this Bill and this Clause and justify it on that alone. How can you justify a conjectural value for the valuation of land when the valuation of stocks and shares must be on the value they will actually fetch in the open market? If I have an estate in Consols or in War Loan and for the good fortune of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I die, my estate is valued at the amount those stocks and shares would fetch on the Stock Exchange at the very day. But if my estate is not in Consols or War Loan, or in some really marketable security, but is agricultural land, then I and my heirs have to
submit to the conjectural value at what an urban official considers to be the open market value. The conjectural value which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury called the amenity value is to be comparable with furs and jewels. That is the case in justification for this Amendment and the case which the Front Bench opposite have not attempted to meet. It has been held that if stocks and shares which pass at death cannot be assessed at actual Stock Exchange prices you can put a conjectural value on them, but only to this extent, that if it can be proved afterwards that the conjectural value was wrong there must be a reassessment. You have no saving clause with regard to agricultural land. We are asking to-day that you shall redress this grievance of the agricultural community. It is not a grievance which is hitting one class; it is a grievance which hits every man who is earning his living on agricultural land.
The Government have introduced by Clause 29 a large army of people who will have to pay Estate Duty on agricultural land. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should remember that in Clause 29 he is including a man who turns his agricultural holding into a company He is including a farmer who, being unable to pay his way, turns his farm into a private company, and he is levying that farmer with Estate Duty. We have discussed the merits of the levy upon Clause 29, and now we turn to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask that that levy upon the farming business shall be on the actual value of that business in the business market, and not upon amenity value put on by an urban official and assessed on his conjecture, without any redress. I remember and no doubt other hon. Members in this House remember, a passage in the Bible which starts "Rehoboam's evil reign." The agricultural community, which has for a long time been beset by previous Governments, are now realising that you have here a second Rehoboam who is saying, "My predecessor chastised you with whips, but I am chastising you with scorpions." I ask that one scorpion shall take on a milder form. I hope that it will be turned into the form which the Noble Lord suggests in his Clause. I believe that by that means we shall get a little more redress for the agricultural community.

Viscount CRANBORNE: I rise with considerable diffidence because the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has poured considerable scorn and criticism upon two classes in this country, and I belong to them both.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is impossible. You cannot belong to two classes. You have to choose whom you will serve—God or Mammon.

Viscount CRANBORNE: With due deference to the hon. Member, I do belong to both classes. At the same time, I will take my courage in both hands and say a few words in support of this Clause. This question of the basis of the tax on agricultural land for the purposes of Estate Duty has cropped up a, good many times during our various discussions on Finance Bills. Whenever it has been mentioned, hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite have always retorted that the Estate Duties were not an Income Tax but were a capital tax, that we must not confuse the two, and that there was really only one capital value for everything, and that was the market value. That is what I understand to be their contention. We all agree that it is a capital tax, but there are many of us who would not admit that in the case of land, the market value was the real and true capital value, but would maintain that in that respect it is different from other forms of wealth. It is very easy to assess stocks and shares on their market value, and to show that market value is their capital value. In stocks and shares, capital value depends upon, and is governed by, the income which those shares bring in. If a, company does well and its income has increased, the price of the shares goes up and the capital value of those shares is increased. If the company does badly, the capital value of the shares is decreased. Therefore, it is obvious that the market value is a far fairer standard to take.
When you come to land, things are completely different, for, as has often been said in these debates, there is frequently little or no connection between the capital value and the income of land. Land—and I speak principally of agricultural land, because it is that with which we are principally concerned in this Clause—has, in fact, two separate and distinct values. It has a present value,
the agricultural value, which is dependent upon the actual income and is often very small indeed, and it has a future value, the selling value, which is only created when the land is sold. Until then, it has no value whatever. If the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Government had been to assess agricultural land for the purposes of these duties at the present value, the agricultural value, and then when that land was sold, when the new value was created, that the Revenue should collect the remainder of the duty in the form of an increment tax, though I do not know whether all hon. Members on this side would agree, there are many who would think that it was a reasonable proposal. To take an entirely hypothetical value and one which does not yet exist and tax the land, surely is absolutely indefensible. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs took great exception to the Duke of Montrose and said he was a robber—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Worse. His father was a murderer.

Viscount CRANBORNE: Anyhow, we will leave it at a robber for this purpose—because he asked certain Members of the Government when he wanted them to buy his land, the price at which the Government assessed his land. He was only asking from them the price at which they themselves assessed the value of his land. So if he was a robber, they also attempted to rob him. If, as we believe, these Estate Duties are unsound in principle, they are also deplorable in results. Hon. Members opposite are perhaps a little too apt to think of the objects of the tax and too little of the results. A great deal has been said from these benches during this debate about the disastrous and deplorable results upon agriculture. Of course, that is the main contention which we have against the duty, but it has already been dealt with so fully that I do not propose to stress it any further.
I should like to say a few words on another aspect of the question, which has not been mentioned and which, although not so obviously important, is of considerable importance, and I think it may commend itself to certain hon. Members opposite. We hear a great deal in these days about ribbon development and the destruction of beauty spots. That is a
matter of the gravest importance to the whole community, not only to those who live in the country but to those who live in the towns also, because the country is the playground of the town. I do not think that hon. Members opposite realise quite enough that this ribbon development is an inevitable and immediate result of the assessment of Estate Duty on the present basis. What happens is, that you tax a man on the hypothetical value of his land, a value which does not yet exist, and in order to pay the tax he has to make it of real value. He has immediately to sell land and, of course, he sells that portion of his estate which is the most easily realisable, which is the most valuable, but which very often from the point of view of the community it is not at all desirable should be built over or developed. You cannot blame the owner, because the community has forced him to do it. The object of this new Clause, as I understand it, is to correlate the tax to the actual value, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will agree that it is desirable from the point of view of the community and not merely from the point of view of the landlord, that this should be done, rather than that we should perpetuate a basis of taxation which is really unsound in principle and disastrous in its results, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes in the present Finance Bill.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have listened with considerable interest to this debate but I have not got to what is at the bottom of the minds of all who have spoken. I believe that it is a great mistake to tax agricultural land, especially for Death Duties, because the burden does not fall on the landowner but upon the farmer and the ploughman, ultimately. They carry the burden on the land. There is really no such thing as a landowner of agricultural land; it is the land that owns the man. A man buys a bit of land and he goes there with a fortune made in trade or commerce, and in a very short time he finds himself spending his capital upon that land. There is no greater impulse to expenditure than landowning. The landowner is content with perhaps the barest possible return of any form of investment
He has, of course, the spiritual return of an amenity investment. Land hunger is perhaps one of the deepest things in man's nature. Every man would like to own a bit of land, and perhaps the healthiest side of any country is where there are a great number of landowners owning land which they themselves cultivate. The late Lord Acton held that the downfall of Rome began when the latifundia or absorption of estates in few hands started. So long as the Italian peasant cultivated his own land, Rome was strong.
This new Clause is based on what one might call the commercial value, that is to say, 20 years purchase. That is a very fair price. With regard to the present basis of valuation, if the landowner was entitled to say to the Government, "You value my estate at so much, take the whole estate and give me the cash for it," that would be a real test as to whether the Government valuer agreed with the valuation that has been put upon the land. Would they do that? No fear. That is what the Duke of Montrose wished to do in connection with his estate. He was perfectly prepared to meet them if the Government would take the whole estate at their own valuation and pay the cash difference. He said: "'A' is the estate and 'B' is the figure of the taxation. If you give me the difference between them I will give you the whole estate." The Government valuers want to act on the principle of "Heads we win, tails you lose."
It is not so easy to deal with this matter, even with stocks and shares. A friend of mine died during a period of boom and his estate was valued for nearly £200,000. When they came to settle the Death Duties, six months later, the estate was not worth £20,000. The stocks and shares had slumped in the meantime, there was nothing with which to pay the Death Duties, and his family were ruined. That is what happens with these Treasury valuations. I could give a number of cases. A man died in the North of England leaving an estate valued at £2,000,000 by the Government valuer. His estate consisted of shipbuilding yards, coal mines, etc. A sum of £800,000 had to be raised in debentures to meet the Death Duties. When the slump came that man's two boys were looking for jobs, although they were
supposed to be millionaires; the place was ruined. That is what one gets from a Government valuation.
Land has always been an utterly unprofitable asset. The landlords have been the bankers for the farmer and the farmer has been the provider for the ploughman and the agricultural worker. The landowners saw the farmers through the crisis in 1879. We feel this, matter of taxation very much in my constituency. We used to have piers built by landowners at a cost of thousands of pounds, but the landowners have been cleaned out by land taxation. Now, when I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Scottish Office will do something of the work that the landowners used to do with respect to the piers, they will not do it or, at any rate, it takes time, and meanwhile the result is that my islanders are ruined.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We cannot allow this to go unchallenged. Nobody knows better than the hon. and learned Member the reason why the Scottish Office is not going to repair these piers. The reason is that if we repair the piers they will belong to the landlords.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If the hon. Member knew anything about piers he would know that a pier is a liability and not an asset. If you present a landowner with a pier you place upon him a big liability.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: A liability?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Any landowner is prepared to make his pier over to the county council if they will put it in order. I know one landowner in one of the islands that I represent and it costs him £1,500 a year, over and above any income that he receives, for being the landowner of that island. You find a similar state of things all over Scotland. Landowning is a sheer liability.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Scotland is a liability for the landlords! That will be produced in evidence against you at the General Election.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: You can use whatever evidence you like. Come down to Kintyre.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think hon. Members are getting rather too discursive on the subject of this new Clause.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I went to the Duke of Montrose to get a harbour for the fishermen in my Division. He offered me a harbour for nothing, but I could not get the Scottish Office to dredge it. It was a splendid harbour, and the Duke was willing to give it and allow his own harbour-master to look after it. I am indignant at the attack which has been made upon the Duke of Montrose. He was out serving his country on the sea, doing his best for his country, when the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs was in gaol for sedition. The hon. Member must have been thinking of those lines:
Wha will be a traitor knave?
Wha can fill a coward's grave?
Wha sae base as be a slave?
Traitor! coward, turn and flee.
The hon. Member makes this attack upon a better man than himself. When I was going through Argyll I came upon evidences as to the effect of the taxation on land. I saw an immense garden quarried out of the rock, a very costly undertaking. I said to the owner, "Your ancestor cannot have been very wise to have wasted all that money." He replied that 100 years ago there was terrible unemployment in the district, and that his ancestor employed every person in the district in order to provide them with something to do in order to justify the expense. It was wasteful, but it was better than the unemployment benefit with nothing to do. It maintained them in their self-respect and physical condition. That is what was done in the old days, when they were not taxed to death. These landowners were the bankers of the community. They did their duty by the people, and it is a great calamity that they are being lost to the country. In the same place I saw other evidences of the expenditure by the landowner to give his people employment in times of unemployment. The people were looked after in those old days by the landlords. The owners of the land knew that they had a duty to perform, and they did it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are now dealing with a proposed alteration of the assessment upon people who now exist.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I admit that, and I want to say that the present system of taxation is the thing which is preventing these people existing; it is exterminating them. I do not want to see them exterminated. I want to see these estates valued on a fair basis. They ought not to be assessed on a so-called amenity value. That is taxing them for their beautiful isles and land. They should be taxed on their income, on what they get out of their estates. It is not a good thing from a business point of view to own land. The landowner has to spend money on the estate, and provide pensions for his employés instead of cutting them off at a day's notice like industrialists. He also has to provide cottages for them, which he lets at 1s. or 2s. per week. Neither I nor the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs would do that. But these people do all these things. He says "Tax me on what I am getting, not upon something which I have not got." After all, it is human beings who pay taxes, not the land. Why should a man be fined for owning land? There is no real land owning in this country, the land belongs to the King. I think we ought to get back to the state when there is same person in the district who is content with a most moderate return; in some cases it is a liability.
We have had a long succession of wealthy gentlemen from all parts of the world who have made money suddenly, and who think that by acquiring laud they will also acquire a status. It takes three generations to make a landowner, and if you are going to tax them three times with Death Duties—they may amount to more than the estate is worth—there will not be time to make real landowners of them. New landlords, every one will agree, are the most unsatisfactory landlords. They need to be bred to the trade. They are something like beautiful old castles, very elegant monuments. They set a tone for manners and good conduct. They are not being fairly taxed, and I say that no Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) or the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, has a right to tax a man on the fanciful value of an estate. He should be taxed on what he gets out of it. And let it be a fixed sum, not the random opinion of a Government valuer. Above
all, when a valuation is put on the land the landowner should have the right to say "You have valued it at so much; I will accept your valuation, less the amount of assessment." This proposal is a step in that direction and I cordially support it.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I have listened to almost the entire debate this evening, and the most disappointing speech of all was the speech of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I can remember the time when he used to rage upon those back benches in a most many way, but to-day his speech was very mild, almost as pathetic as the speech of the Financial Secretary. He could only find one Duke to bring in, and he was a Scottish Duke. We have heard a great deal about a certain section of owners of land, but there is one section which has been entirely neglected, and that is the smaller owners. This new Clause will do something to increase expenditure in country districts, to increase the prosperity of the country districts, and enable the Government of the day to avoid having to pay those subsidies which we have paid during the last few years in connection with forestry and sugar beet. There is also a large section of the community which have bought their farms during the last 10 or 20 years, and many people who actually own small farms of 300 and 400 acres, who have been in existence as yeomen farmers for many generations. They are a small class compared with those who have bought land and taken it up in the last few years.
May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider one point of view? There may be other attractions at the moment, but it is usual even for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to give attention to what is being said. Has he considered the position of the tenant farmer who has paid £4,000 or £5,000 for his farm? Such a man will be valued on the full value of the farm as laid down in the Bill; he will have to pay not only a tax on the capital of his land, but also a tax on his implements and his cattle and the rest of his capita] value. It is conceivable that a man of that kind will be called upon to pay what to him is an enormous amount of capital, which will depreciate his capacity for carrying on the farm. Farmers have already been badly hit by
a series of had years. I again ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has given the smallest consideration to the case of the man with a very limited amount of capital. Even if the right hon. Gentleman cannot meet the case of the big man, will he not, between now and Report, give some consideration to the

position of the small owner-occupier, who is more hit than any other section of the agricultural community to-day?

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time,"

The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 297.

Division No. 425.]
AYES.
[9.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
England, Colonel A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Albery, Irving James
Ferguson, Sir John
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Fielden, E. B.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atholl, Duchess of
Ford, Sir P. J.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Atkinson, C.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Ramsbotham, H.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Tbanet)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Balniel, Lord
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Beaumont, M. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Berry, Sir George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hammersley, S. S.
Salmon, Major I.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Haslam, Henry C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Boyce, H. L.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brass, Captain Sir William
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Skelton, A. N.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smithers, Waldron


Buchan, John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerset, Thomas


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Butler, R. A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Iveagh, Countess of
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thomson, Sir F.


Chapman, Sir S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Christie, J. A.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Train, J.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Colville, Major D. J.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cranborne, Viscount
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Cunliffe-Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Meller, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Withers, Sir John James


Davies, Dr. Varnon
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon Sir W.
Womersley, W. J.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Dawson, Sir Philip
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)



Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Muirhead, A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Eden, Captain Anthony
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Barnes, Alfred John
Broad, Francis Alfred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Barr, James
Brockway, A. Fenner


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Batey, Joseph
Bromfield, William


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Brooke, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Bellamy, Albert
Brothers, M.


Alpass, J. H.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)


Ammon, Charles George
Benson, G.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Angell, Norman
Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)


Arnott, John
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Blindell, James
Buchanan, G.


Ayles, Walter
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Burgess, F. G.


Baker, John (Wotverhampton, Bilston)
Bowen, J. W.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cameron, A. G.
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Raynes, W. R.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kennedy, Thomas
Richards, R.


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Chater, Daniel
Kinley, J.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Clarke, J. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cluse, W. S.
Knight, Holford
Ritson, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lang, Gordon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Romeril, H. G.


Compton, Joseph
Lathan, G.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cove, William G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rowson, Guy


Cowan, D. M.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Daggar, George
Lawrence, Susan
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dallas, George
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Leach, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sandham, E.


Day, Harry
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sawyer, G. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scott, James


Dickson, T.
Lindley, Fred W.
Scrymgeour, E.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Scurr, John


Dukes, C.
Logan, David Gilbert
Sexton, James


Duncan, Charles
Long bottom, A. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Ede, James Chuter
Longden, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Edge, Sir William
Lowth, Thomas
Sherwood, G. H.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lunn, William
Shield, George William


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shinwell, E.


Egan, W. H.
McElwee, A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
McEntee, V. L.
Simmons, C. J.


Foot, Isaac
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
McKinlay, A.
Sinkinson, George


Freeman, Peter
MacLaren, Andrew
Sitch, Charles H.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McShane, John James
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gill, T. H.
Mansfield, W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Glassey, A. E.
Marcus, M.
Snell, Harry


Gossling, A. G.
Markham, S. F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gould, F.
Marley, J.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Marshall, Fred
Sorensen, R.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mathers, George
Stamford, Thomas W.


Granville, E.
Matters, L. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Gray, Milner
Maxton, James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Messer, Fred
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Middleton, G.
Strauss, G. R.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mills, J. E.
Sullivan, J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major J.
Sutton, J. E.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Montague, Frederick
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morley, Ralph
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Tinker, John Joseph


Harbord, A.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Toole, Joseph


Hardie, George D.
Mort, D. L.
Tout, W. J.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Moses, J. J. H.
Townend, A. E.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Haycoek, A. W.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Turner, B.


Hayes, John Henry
Muff, G.
Vaughan, D. J.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Murnin, Hugh
Walkden, A. G.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Walker, J.


Herriotts, J.
Naylor, T. E.
Wallace, H. W.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oldfield, J. R.
Watkins, F. C.


Hoffman, P. C.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hollins, A.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hopkin, Daniel
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Horrabin, J. F.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Wellock, Wilfred


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Palin, John Henry
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Paling, Wilfrid
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Isaacs, George
Palmer, E. T.
West, F. R.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Perry, S. F.
Westwood, Joseph


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
White, H. G.


Johnston, Thomas
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pole, Major D. G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Potts, John S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Price, M. P.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pybus, Percy John
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)




Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Wise, E. F.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
William Whiteley.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — POSTPONED CLAUSE 12.—(Deduction not to be allowable for purpose of surtax in respect of interest on loans used for payment of premiums, etc.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Owing to circumstances of which the Committee are aware I do not propose to call any of the Amendments on this Clause which appear on the Order Paper.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

First Schedule (Procedure in connection with the determination, of annual values of properties for the purposes of assessment for a year of revaluation) agreed to.

Second Schedule (Scale of Rates of Estate Duty) agreed to.

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I beg to move in page 40, line 10, column 3, to leave out the words, "for the purposes of the Acts relating."
This is a purely drafting alteration, and take out words which are no longer necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move in page 41, line 12, column 3, to leave out the words "definition of" and to insert instead thereof the words "definitions of 'ratepayer' and."
This is precisely similar in character to the previous Amendment, and makes a necessary rectification of wording.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir CYRIL COBB: I beg to move, in page 42, line 34, column 3, after the word "words," to insert the words:
from the 'surveyor' to 'notices, and'; the words 'within a month after the receipt thereof'; the second paragraph; and in the third paragraph the words.

Mr. SNOWDEN: This is an Amendment which I am prepared to accept.

Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 230.]

Orders of the Day — COAL MINES BILL.

Lords Reasons for insisting on certain of their Amendments, Lords Amendments in lieu of certain of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, and Lords consequential Amendment to the Bill, considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provisions of district scheme.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).

Lords Reason:

The Lords insist on their amendment in page 9, line 6, for the following Reason:

Because the district levy proposed would operate inequitably between districts and would entail an unjustifiable burden on the home consumer of coal.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I beg to move, "That this House doth not insist on its- disagreement to the said Amendment."

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member on his first appearance in his new office, and still further to congratulate him on having proposed such an admirable course to the House.

Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to move as a consequential Amendment to the Bill in page 9, line 43, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that in the case of any draft order providing that a district scheme may be amended so as to provide for empowering the executive board for the district subject to the consent of the central council, to collect from the owners of coal mines in the district levies for the purpose of facilitating the sale of any class of coal produced in the district the foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect as if for the reference therein to a period of twenty days there were substituted a reference to a period of twenty-five days.
Perhaps I may be permitted a few observations in explanation of the course which we now propose to pursue. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very kind commendation, and I hope to be worthy of it. It will be noted that
the decision we have just reached removes the specific provision for the imposition of district levies. Therefore, the district levy proposal as such follows the national levy proposal. Whatever views we may have as to the wisdom of such a proceeding, we are bound to face the facts and to accept whatever may be the consequences of such a course being pursued. At the same time, I am bound to say, speaking for my right hon. Friend, for myself, and for those behind me, that we consider that within the general framework of this Measure the provision for district levies was very wise.
We now propose, in this consequential Amendment, that the district levy proposal should not appear in the original scheme propounded for the districts, but when an amended scheme presented by the executive board of a particular district is presented to the Board of Trade for its consideration, it may be within the power of the executive board to recommend the provision of a district levy subject to the consent of the central council. The safeguard proposed, in our judgment, is ample, and there is an additional safeguard in the fact that no such levy could possibly be imposed on the submission of such an amended scheme without the consent of the Board of Trade, and moreover without the consent, although it appears in the form of a negative Resolution, of both Houses or Parliament. It has been alleged that the imposition of a district levy might be unfair in its operation as between districts, and there is some substance in that contention, but if it is within the purview of this House and another place to pronounce judgment upon such schemes as are submitted to them, that, in our judgment, should be quite a sufficient safeguard.
It will be observed that in the Clause in which these provisions occur there is ample power, in Sub-section (4) of Clause 3, to deal with such matters. The words "or any matters" appear in Subsection (4) of Clause 3, but it was intended that those words should apply to considerations other than those that might be foreseen, and in our judgment it would be taking advantage of the House to take advantage of this particular provision in the light of what may
occur at a later stage, and so my right hon. Friend has proposed that we should provide this consequential Amendment, with the further consideration that 25 days shall elapse, instead of 20 days, for the consideration of any draft Order that may be laid upon the Table, so as to provide whatever safeguards are essential.
As regards the merits of the case, I should like to submit, very shortly, because the matter has been discussed to a very great extent on previous occasions, that the principle which is proposed to be embodied in the Measure, with all the safeguards and restrictions that will operate, has already been accepted by this House. It operates in relation to the mineral freights rebate. Though I express no opinion on the merits of the principle involved, the provision there is intended to provide assistance to our export trade, and to certain categories of coal other than those intended for export, out of the public exchequer, and if it is wise to take advantage of the public exchequer for the provision of State assistance for such purposes—the purposes, for example, of stimulating our export trade or providing assistance for basic industries in relation to their coal supplies—equally it is wise to provide some sort of levy, as is here proposed, for assistance to the industry. The principle has been accepted by the House, and as it is embodied in our legislation, there appears to be no reason why it should not be accepted in this case.
I fortify myself in this regard by drawing on my experiences at Geneva quite recently. I do not propose to speak on the subject of hours, because that is not appropriate on this occasion, but I left Geneva, after discussion with representatives of the most important coal producing countries in Europe, with the profound impression that every effort was now being made by those coal producing countries to capture whatever remained of our export trade on the Continent. I express no opinion as to the wisdom of such a course; we have to face the facts, and some defence of our interests requires to be maintained. That defence is embodied in the general provisions of this Bill, in the proposal for new organisations, for the proposed amalgamation schemes, and so on. So far so good, but when we have to deal with the
export trade as such, it appears to be desirable, in the face of the antagonisms that now confront us and that are becoming more and more intensified, to provide something in the nature of an artificial stimulus. That has already been provided to some extent in the mineral freights rebate, and we propose to fortify those proposals by this additional proposal.
It may be argued that we have accepted the decision of another place in regard to the removal of the specific provision in relation to the imposition of district levies, and that we now propose to insert them in another form. That is only a half truth, and the position is shortly this: In its original form, when a scheme was propounded, the district levy proposition had to be embodied therein. Over and above that, there did not exist the overriding consideration of both Houses of Parliament—a very important consideration, indeed. Our proposal provides, first of all, that there should not be any suggestion of a district levy in the original scheme. It can only come in in the light of experience. For example, if after a scheme has been operating for some time it is discovered that there is need for the imposition of a district levy in any particular district, that power can be invoked, but it is hedged round by restrictions and safeguards such as I have indicated. I think that with these explanations, more particularly as regards the safeguards which are provided, the House might well now agree to the acceptance of this consequential Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I regret that so soon after our friendly interchange of views I should find myself in complete disagreement with the hon. Gentleman. He has commended this strange Amendment to the House as being a consequential Amendment. If he had called it inconsequential I think it would have been nearer the truth. Let the House observe what we are invited to do. For the last nine months we have been discussing this Bill, and the part of the Bill—and not the least contentious part of it—which we have debated in both Houses has been the levy—the central levy and the district levy. The central levy went by the decision of the House and the district levy very nearly went. Indeed, it had almost as near an escape as the right hon. Gentleman had
earlier in the evening, but he made better arrangements on that occasion. [Interruption.] We were all united, at any rate, on the subject, and we found a measure of support from an ally who is not always with us. He gives quite an impartial distribution of his favours, and he is leading his party on this occasion. He has never expressed anything but consistent, eloquent and, for one who does not generally indulge in passion, I might say almost a passionate view and a vehement objection to the proposition. When we discussed it, the whole issue of the levy was considered.
I will content myself with not rearguing the whole thing now, but of merely expressing, as my own language and on behalf of my party, the extraordinarily strong case made against a district levy at any time or in any place by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman). What was the point, and the whole issue between us? It was not a case of whether this required consideration in a district and of the procedure to be followed. It was a very big question of principle, and it was on the question of principle that the House decided. It is on that question that this matter comes back to us again—whether in principle the district levy is right or wrong. The whole argument against the district levy was that it was unfair to the consumer in this country and that what they were doing by the levy, whether district or central, was to take a contribution from the owners to subsidise coal for export. As the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway said, that was an inverted protection of a most extraordinary kind which was against the interest of the home consumer, and, to paraphrase the right hon. Gentleman's language, as a result of this Coal Bill, the only man who in future would get his coal cheaply was the competitor of the British industrialist beyond the seas.
There was a further argument advanced, and not for one moment countered, that if you allowed this to happen, you would find British ships bunkering in foreign ports. I do not want to take the House through the whole argument at great length, because that is unnecessary,
as the argument has already been fully exposed in the House and dealt with as a question of principle. If I may respectfully say so, it is really not treating the House with any seriousness, when a minute or two ago we agreed with another place in deciding in principle that the district levy should go out, to say two minutes afterwards that, as a consequential Amendment, the hon. Gentleman should be able to move the district levy in. The House has to decide the simple principle of whether we are in favour of a district levy or not. The arguments which the right hon. Gentleman advanced about the importance of not penalising the domestic consumer, the importance of not subsidising the foreign bunkering station so that British ships go to bunker in foreign ports, and the unfairness of forcing people in an area to contribute to a fund to be used in the interests of their competitors—those arguments do not go with the question of whether we should have a district levy now or in two or three months' time. Those arguments raise the question of principle of whether we should have this district levy at all.
The House should not be in any doubt that what is being attempted now, merely under a sort of camouflaged procedure, is to put in the district levy when it has already been thrown out in another place—and the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well if he is to keep his Bill at all he must accept that decision. This is an extraordinary Amendment. To start with, it, has taken two forms within the last two days. A day ago the Amendment was on the Order Paper and both Houses were to have 15 days in which to consider it. For some mysterious reason it appears on the Order Paper today and we are allowed 25 days in which to consider it. I am very much obliged. I confess it appears the only reason why 20 days was not inserted—which is the time proposed in Sub-section (4) for the consideration of an order which has to be laid before the House—was, that if we had been invited to say that this was a matter which could properly be dealt with under Sub-section (4) in the form in which Sub-section (4) had gone through this House, we should have been told, and quite rightly, that, the House having decided as a question
of principle and as a substantive proposal, that the district levy was not to be included in the Bill, it would have been ultra vires for the Board of Trade to make a proposal under Subsection (4) as it stood. I think that must be so. If it is not so, it is perfectly unnecessary for any Amendment to appear on the Paper. If I am right on the technical point of Order, as I am quite certain I am right as to the question of principle, then what the right hon. Gentleman is doing is to try by this rather cumbrous form of procedure to put back, in what he calls a consequential Amendment, the power to do by an Order that which a minute ago he moved the House to agree—and the House unanimously agreed—should be forbidden.
This is a question of principle, and it has been voted upon in this House as a question of principle. It is a question where every Member who voted against it was clearly of opinion that he was against it as a question of principle. Incidentally, I heard nothing about Scotland to-night from the hon. Gentleman. The last time that we debated this matter, the right hon. Gentleman said it was vital to have this in order that Scottish coalowners might frame a scheme of their own. If the Scottish coalowners did not frame a scheme of their own, the right hon. Gentleman would have power to frame a scheme under the Clauses of the Bill which have been passed. On the last occasion, the right hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Lane Fox) cited a resolution passed by the whole of the coalowners in Scotland saying that the majority of them were opposed to this proposal. Perhaps we shall hear something of that, because that statement was not contradicted on the last occasion. It was the complete answer to the only new argument which the right hon. Gentleman addressed to the House, and we have not had a single word about it to-night. We have only been told that, of course, this will not appear in the scheme at first blush, but presently, if people think that they want this form of subvention, they can come later. We have not had a word in answer to the argument that if the right hon. Gentleman puts this as a statutory levy in the Bill, he will have to discount competely the argument he is now pressing upon foreign countries to
abandon subsidised export. There has been no answer to the arguments on the question of principle. This House has voted on the question of principle, and I urge the House to vote on the question of principle again.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Let me remind the House of the history of this provision. As the Bill was introduced, there was a Clause allowing a central levy to be imposed over the whole country in order to give a subsidy on export coal, and a district levy which was to be allocated among the districts. [Interruption.] I must ask the hon. and gallant Member not to interrupt. The House struck out the central levy, but the Government were able to carry the district levy. The House of Lords at the next stage struck out the district levy, and when the Measure came here, we voted against the district levy and supported the decision of the House of Lords. Nevertheless, the Government, having defeated that, sent the proposal back to the house of Lords, who have struck it out the second time. The Government have now agreed with the House of Lords in striking it out, but reinsert the proposals in a different form, and seem to me to have abandoned the substance of their Previous proposal, while retaining the form of it.
The provision in its present form seems to be really not worth putting in. It can never become operative. A district levy has to run the gauntlet of five authorities. First, the district committee has to approve the proposal. It then has to go to the national committee

of coal owners, which will certainly regard it with a very jealous eye, because any proposal which will give an advantage to the export of one district in competition with other districts would receive a great deal of opposition. Thirdly, it has to be approved by the Board of Trade. Then it has to be laid before the House of Commons, which can at any time pass a resolution condemning it. Fifthly, it has to be passed on to the House of Lords, who can at any time veto the proposal. In these circumstances, it is a question whether the Clause should be put in the Bill or not. I do not think that it is worth putting in but I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman wants to retain it in this form in order to give the House of Lords something to bite on at the next stage, in order that they should not attack other proposals.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us which way he is going to vote?

Captain WATERHOUSE: I should not have intervened had not the right hon. Gentleman turned round and asked me not to interrupt. I would like to ask a question which my right hon. Friend has just put. We have seen this afternoon an example of carrying—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman cannot raise that question now.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 244.

Division No. 426.]
AYES.
[9.43 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cove, William G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Broad, Francis Alfred
Daggar, George


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Brockway, A. Fenner
Dallas, George


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Bromfield, William
Dalton, Hugh


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Brooke, W.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Alpass, J. H.
Brothers, M.
Day, Harry


Amman, Charles George
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Angell, Norman
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Dickson, T.


Arnott, John
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Dukes, C.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Buchanan, G.
Duncan, Charles


Ayles, Walter
Burgess, F. G.
Ede, James Chuter


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Edge, Sir William


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Caine, Derwent Hall-
Edmunds, J. E.


Barnes, Alfred John
Cameron, A. G.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Barr, James
Cape, Thomas
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Batey, Joseph
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Egan, W. H.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Charleton, H. C.
Foot, Isaac


Bellamy, Albert
Chater, Daniel
Forgan, Dr. Robert


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Church, Major A. G.
Freeman, Peter


Benson, G.
Clarke, J. S.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Cluse, W. S.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gibbins, Joseph


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)


Bowen, J. W.
Compton, Joseph
Gill, T. H.


Gillett, George M.
McKinlay, A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Gossling, A. G.
MacLaren, Andrew
Sherwood, G. H.


Gould, F.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Shield, George William


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McShane, John James
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shillaker, J. F.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Shinwell, E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mansfield, W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
March, S.
Simmons, C. J.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Marcus, M.
Sinkinson, George


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Markham, S. F.
Sitch, Charles H.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Marley, J.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Marshall, F.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mathers, George
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Hardie, George D.
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Messer, Fred
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Middleton, G.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Haycock, A. W.
Mills, J. E.
Snell, Harry


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Milner, Major J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Montague, Frederick
Sorensen, R.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Herriotts, J.
Morley, Ralph
Stephen, Campbell


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mort, D. L.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Hoffman, P. C.
Moses, J. J. H.
Strauss, G. R.


Hollins, A.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Sullivan, J.


Hopkin, Daniel
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Sutton, J. E.


Horrabin, J. F.
Muff, G.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Isaacs, George
Murnin, Hugh
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Naylor, T. E.
Thurtle, Ernest


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tinker, John Joseph


Johnston, Thomas
Noel Baker, P. J.
Toole, Joseph


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Oldfield, J. R.
Tout, W. J.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Oliver, George Harold (likeston)
Townend, A. E.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Palin, John Henry.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Paling, Wilfrid
Turner, B.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Palmer, E. T.
Vaughan, D. J.


Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Viant, S. P.


Kelly, W. T.
Perry, S. F.
Walkden, A. G.


Kennedy, Thomas
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Walker, J.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wallace, H. W.


Kinley, J.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wallhead, Richard C.


Kirkwood, D.
Pole, Major D. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Knight, Holford
Potts, John S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lang, Gordon
Price, M. P.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Pybus, Percy John
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Lathan, G.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wellock, Wilfred


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Raynes, W. R.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lawrence, Susan
Richards, R.
West, F. R.


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Westwood, Joseph


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
White, H. G.


Leach, W.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Ritson, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Romeril, H. G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lindley, Fred W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Rowson, Guy
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Logan, David Gilbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Longbottom, A. W.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Longden, F.
Sanders, W. S.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Lowth, Thomas
Sandham, E.
Wise, E. F.


Lunn, William
Sawyer, G. F.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Scrymgeour, E.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


McElwee, A.
Scurr, John



McEntee, V. L.
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. William




Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Boyce, H. L.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Bracken, B.


Albery, Irving James
Balniel, Lord
Braithwaite, Major A. N.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brass, Captain Sir William


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Beaumont, M. W.
Briscoe, Richard George


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Berry, Sir George
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Buchan, John


Astor, Viscountess
Bird, Ernest Roy
Buckingham, Sir H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Boothby, R. J. G.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm


Atkinson, C.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Butler, R. A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Butt, Sir Alfred




Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Carver, Major W. H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pownall, Sir Attheton


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Purbrick, R.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hammersley, S. S.
Ramsbotham, H.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hanbury, C.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hartington, Marquess of
Remer, John R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Haslam, Henry C.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Chapman, Sir S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Christie, J. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Colman, N. C. D.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Salmon, Major I.


Colville, Major D. J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cowan, D. M.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cranborne, Viscount
Hurd, Percy A.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Savery, S. S.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Iveagh, Countess of
Scott, James


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Skelton, A. N.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smithers, Waldron


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Somerset, Thomas


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Long, Major Eric
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lymington, Viscount
Thomson, Sir F.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Tinne, J. A.


England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Train, J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macquisten, F. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Ferguson, Sir John
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Fermoy, Lord
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Fielden, E. B.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Meller, R. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wells, Sydney R.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay).


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Withers, Sir John James


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Muirhead, A. J.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Womersley, W. J.


Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Grace, John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
O'Connor, T. J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Sir George Penny and Major the


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Marquess of Titchfield.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)



Lords Amendment, in lieu of their former Amendment, agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions of district scheme.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 17, after the word "interests" insert "or is unfair or inequitable in its operation."

Lords Reason:

They insist on their Amendment in page 12, line 17, for the following Reason:

Because it is desirable to afford protection, against cases of individual hardship.

Question, "That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. W. Graham.]

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords
Amendment, after the first word "or," to insert the words "ought to be amended on the ground that it."
I am afraid these words, as I propose them, will seem rather unintelligible, but I will endeavour to put the point to the House in the simplest terms. Subsection (6) of this Clause refers to the committees of investigation and the duties they have to undertake in connection with the operation of a scheme. When the Bill was in Committee and on Report stage hon. Members opposite raised the question of the overriding public interest, which we felt ought to be a consideration, and the case of individuals to whom the scheme might be unfair or inequitable. It was proposed at that, time to add the words:
or is unfair or inequitable in its operation.
The House of Commons did not agree to the insertion of those words, but the House of Lords insisted. I have just moved that we do not insist on our disagreement with the House of Lords, and I am now proposing to amend those words in order that they may read in the following way:
or ought to be amended on the ground that it is unfair or inequitable in its operation.
The meaning of that alteration is that in practice the Board of Trade will be given rather greater discretion. I think the House will agree that in a matter of this kind, as indeed was admitted in another place, the public interest must prevail; but unless the words are amended in the sense that I have proposed, the position would be that any single individual to whom the scheme was unfair or inequitable, even though it might be on a quite minor point, would be able to achieve this result: the Board of Trade would have to make representations to the owners in the district, and, if a remedy were not found, then the other procedure would have to go through its various stages; and sanction for the scheme might be withdrawn on the ground that the difficulty had not been remedied. I have only to say to the House that I think that would be an impossible state of affairs, and the words we propose in the Amendment make the point quite clear. There is a subsequent Amendment in Sub-section (8) which we propose to put on the same basis. In these circumstances,
we are prepared to accept the words which have been proposed in another place. The adoption of the words on the top of page 14 will give an additional right of appeal. I think my explanation makes it clear that we have added to the discretion of the Board of Trade by an additional right of appeal which is proposed on the top of page 14.

Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: It does not seem to me that the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to insert detract from the substance of the Lords Amendment, and we do not propose to offer any objection to their insertion.

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 24, after the word "interests" insert "or is unfair or inequitable."

Lords Reason:

They insist on, their amendments in page 13, line 24, for the following Reason:

Because it is desirable to afford protection against cases of individual hardship.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Amendment to Lords Amendment made: After the first word "or," insert "ought not to be permitted on the ground that it."—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 5, at the end, insert the following new Sub-section:
(10) Any person aggrieved—

(a) by the neglect or refusal of a committee of investigation to report to the Board of Trade that any provision of a scheme is contrary to the public interests, or is unfair or inequitable in its operation, or where such a report has been made is aggrieved by any act or omission of the Board of Trade in relation thereto; or
(b) by the neglect or refusal of a committee of investigation to refer a complaint to arbitration under subsection (8) of this section;

may, with the leave of the Railway and Canal Commission, appeal to that Commission who shall Lave power to make such order as they think fit.

Lords Reason:

They insist on their Amendment in page 14, line 5, for the following Reason:

Because they consider it right to afford access to a judicial tribunal where grievances have not been adequately dealt with.

10.0. p.m.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Amendment to Lords Amendment made: In line 3, after the word "or," insert "ought to be amended on the ground that it."—[Mr. W. Graham.]

CLAUSE 13.—(Amendments of Part I of 16 and 17 Geo. 5, c. 28.)

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 11, at the end, insert the following new subsection:
(2) In the consideration by the Railway and Canal Commission of a scheme prepared by the Board of Trade under this section the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (2) of section seven of the Act of 1926 (which relates to consideration of schemes by the Commission):
'(a) shall not confirm a scheme unless satisfied—

(i) that it would be in the national interest to do so, and
(ii) in the case of an amalgamation scheme that the scheme

(a) will result in lowering the cost of production or disposal of coal, and
(b) will not be financially injurious to any of the undertakings proposed to be amalgamated, unless the scheme contains provisions for the purchase, at a price to be fixed in default of agreement by arbitration, of any such undertaking; and

(iii) that the terms of the scheme are fair and equitable to all persons affected thereby; and'"

Lords Reason:

They do not insist on their Amendment in page 19, line 11, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
(2) In the consideration by the Railway and Canal Commission of a scheme submitted to the Board of Trade under this section the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (2) of section seven of the Act of 1926 (which relates to consideration of schemes by the Commission):
'a) shall not confirm a scheme unless satsified—

(i) that it would be in the national interest to do so, and
(ii) in the case of an amalgamation scheme that the scheme—

(a) will result in lowering the cost of production or disposal of coal, and
(b) will not be financially injurious to any of the undertakings proposed to be amalgamated, unless the scheme contains provisions for the purchase, at a price to be fixed in default of agreement by arbitration, of any such undertaking; and

(iii) that the terms of the scheme are fair and equitable to all persons affected thereby; and'"

CLAUSE 14.—(Temporary Amendment of 8 Edw. 7 c. 57, s. 3.)

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 32, at the end, insert:

Provided that—

(a) the substitution of the words 'half an hour' for the words 'one hour' in section three of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall not apply as respects any mine at which, by agreement between representatives of employers and workmen, the daily hours below ground on an average taken over the twelve weekdays in any fortnight do not exceed the daily hours permissible under section one of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, as amended by the Coal Mines Act, 1919, by more than the extension of half an hour made under section three of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, as amended by the Coal Mines Act, 1926, and this section.
(b) at any mine where an extension of time is in any week made under the said section three, the workmen, by agreement between representatives of employers and workmen, may, notwithstanding anything in the Coal Mines Act, 1908, as amended by any subsequent enactment, begin their period of work on the Saturday of that week before twenty-four hours have elapsed since the beginning of their last period of work, so long as at least eight hours have elapsed since the termination thereof."

Lords Reason:

They do not insist on their Amendment in, page 20, line 32, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Provided that if an application, by agreement between representative organisations of the owners of and the workers employed in or about the coal mines in any district, is made to the Board of Trade in that behalf, the Board of Trade shall make an order, which shall become effective forthwith,
that the substitution of the words 'half an hour' for the words 'one hour' in section three of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall not apply as respects any mine in such district at which the daily hours below ground on an average taken over the twelve weekdays in any fortnight do not exceed the daily hours permissible under section one of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, as amended by the Coal Mines Act, 1919, by more than the extension of half an hour made under section three of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, as amended by the Coal Mines Act, 1926, and this section.
At any mine where an extension of time is in any week made under the said section three, the workmen, by agreement between representatives of employers and workmen, may, notwithstanding anything in the Coal Mines Act, 1908, as amended by any subsequent enactment, begin their period of work on the Saturday of that week before twenty-four hours have elapsed since the beginning of their last period of work, so long as at least eight hours have elapsed since the termination thereof.

Lords Amendment in lieu of their former Amendment read a second time.

Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
So far we have been very accommodating and we have met the other place in a most generous manner. We have conceded practically all the Amendments submitted to us with the exception of points of prime importance. We have to consider in relation to the proposals which come from another place what is the original purpose and intention of this Bill. Certainly, as regards this Clause, the intention was and is to shorten the working day of the miners by one half-hour. From that decision we cannot recede. If we were to accept the proposal now before us it would wipe away whatever advantages are to be derived from the original proposals to shorten the working day of miners, and it would defeat our original purpose.
It has been argued, in the course of the discussions here and in another place, that this proposal is of a permissive character. The short reply to that is that the proposals embodied in the Act of 1926 were equally permissive in character, but, unfortunately, the economic pressure exerted by the coalowners rendered the permissive character of that Act completely nugatory. The men had no alternative but to accept the proposal. If they had not done so, there might have
been a lock-out, or dislocation, or further character from the miners' standpoint. Equally, in this case, although the proposal is clearly permissive in its character, in existing circumstances, and, if I may say so, in circumstances that must in the very nature of the case exist for some time to come, the miners, certainly in many of the districts concerned, will have no alternative but to accept the proposal to spread the hours over the week or fortnight, as the case may be.
It has been argued that the proposal is contingent upon agreement in the industry as between the employers on the one hand and the workpeople on the other, and, indeed, much has been made of that argument in the course of the debates. If agreement were possible, there would have been manifestations of agreement in this House. My friends behind me have indicated their strong disapproval of any such proposal, and they are fortified in their disapproval by the views, not only of their mining constituencies, but of the electors in their constituencies; and, because there is no sign of agreement now, we venture the opinion that, even under the permissive proposals embodied in this Clause now submitted from another place, no agreement is possible, but, on the other hand, disagreement of the most intense character is potential in this proposal.
For one thing, there is all the possibility of variation in its application. It is not intended that the proposal should apply equally over the country—I speak of the mining industry—as a whole at one particular time. It is to be applied, if at all, by districts after the necessary consultation. Therefore, we may find ourselves in this position, that one district, after the necessary consultation, and because of the economic pressure that can undoubtedly be exerted by the owners, may, in certain circumstances, be operating the spread-over principle, and operating it, not only to the industrial disadvantage of the miners elsewhere, but to the economic disadvantage of the mining industry in other parts of the country.
If there is one thing that is essential in relation to the mining industry, it is—I use the term with all reserve—uniformity. A complete measure of uniformity is impracticable, with all the variations of the mining industry. No one ever
pretended that it was possible; certainly wage readjustments of an adverse my right hon. Friend never made any such pretence. But there does exist the possibility of uniformity in relation co the hours of labour. Certainly there is much need for uniformity in relation to the hours of labour in one given day, and that is the original intention of the Bill so far as this particular proposal goes. It has been argued that, if the spread-over principle is not accepted, wage adjustments of an unsatisfactory character will be essential. I venture to say, with regard to the district levy proposals, that there was ample provision in this Measure for such organisational changes as would preclude the need for such wage adjustments. If wage adjustments occur, we hope that they may have an upward tendency, and there is no reason to suppose otherwise. We have no fear on that score.
With very great respect to the other House, therefore, and with every desire to meet them in existing circumstances, and, indeed, we have proved our generosity in that connection, we feel bound—I use the strongest possible language that can be used at this time, or that, indeed, requires to be used—we feel bound, in the circumstances, to disagree with this Amendment, not only in the interests of the miners, whose conditions necessitate a shorter working day, and whose working hours, in comparison with the working hours of miners abroad, are by no means too favourable. [Interruption.] I need not dwell upon that point unless hon. and right hon. Gentlemen desire it, but I may tell them very shortly that in all the important coal-producing countries of Europe—the statistics are not my own, but are furnished by the countries concerned—the hours now, when this Bill has not yet become an Act, are no higher than the hours of labour in this country in the mining industry will be when this Bill is placed upon the Statute Book. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman opposite speaks of 600 hours' overtime. The less we say about overtime the better—

Commodore DOUGLAS KING: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, if he considers that we are working 600 hours' overtime in this country, it is surely his business to see that it is stopped?

Mr. SHINWELL: It is precisely because the right hon. Gentleman, when he occupied the office that I now hold, did not apply his mind to that particular problem, that I must apply my mind intensely to it. Therefore, I say, having regard to the conditions of the miners in comparison with the conditions abroad—the facts are there for everyone to see—having regard to the needs of the industry itself, we must resist the proposal that comes from another place.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Gentleman, on the last Amendment that gave rise to any discussion, succeeded in persuading the House to carry a Clause giving the Board of Trade a discretionary, permissive power to make orders. He made a strong appeal to the House to give him that power and he succeeded in carrying the Amendment. He now comes to another Amendment on a subject of much greater importance where, in the opinion of many, a discretion is far more necessary—[Interruption.] I am certainly not going to be deflected from saying what has got to be said. I will give hon. Members credit for the sincerity of their views and I hope they will give us credit for the sincerity of ours. We are quite prepared to debate the merits of our respective views at any time and in any place. Here is a question where, in the opinion of many, inside the industry and outside it—people outside it have an interest too—discretionary power is far more necessary. I think the hon. Gentleman, in moving this Amendment, has done a good deal less than credit to the terms of the proposal itself and to the capacity of the Miners' Federation as negotiators. The proposal itself is different in form from that in which it came to us on a previous occasion. Then it was a proposal that arrangements should be entered into pit by pit, and to that he took exception. I also took exception to it. Obviously it ought to be in the form of district agreements. But that is changed and it now comes to us in a form where this can only operate where there is a definite agreement in a district and, after that, the Board of Trade makes an order. Therefore, there is no question, either in substance or in form, of its being what he has represented it to be.
He will really understand the situation better if he will appreciate that I do not believe there is anyone in the House or in another place who, in the proposal that is now put forward, in whatever form it may ultimately take, has the least intention or desire to weight the scales one way or another. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes us to give him credit for disinterestedness, he would better persuade us and the country if he would give other people credit for meaning what they say. I repeat without fear of contradiction that I am certain that there is no one in the House, and I do not believe there is anyone in another place, who wants anything but that there should be in this matter perfectly free negotiation, and that it is only where there has been free and frank negotiation and an agreement entered into that this Clause should operate. [Interruption.] It is what it says and it is what it means. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says if you put that into an Act of Parliament, people will be forced, whether they like it or not—[Interruption.] I have heard the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I understood it without it being enforced by interruptions. What he said was that the Act of 1926 was permissive in form, and you only had to look to the effect of the Act in order to show that it was compulsory in substance.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman, even if the cases were parallel, is to be found in the facts. The hours and the facts have been cited. The hours to-day are not the same all over the country. If the Act of 1926 had been compulsory on everybody to work eight hours, the whole country would be working eight hours to-day. What is the position? In the great bulk of the federated area—in Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire—in four counties producing, as the hon. Gentleman has said to support his observation, something like 100,000,000 tons of coal, eight hours are not being worked at all, but seven and a-half hours.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: Ten!

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is really nonsense. I mention this because it is not only a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman, but it is being cited in
another place and in this House as an argument to show that a very large number of people are not going to be affected by this Bill at all. That has been their argument. In four counties which are producing something like 100,000,000 tons of coal, they are not working eight hours. Though it is permissible, and, according to the hon. Member, compulsory, under the 1926 Act, in those districts producing more than one-third of the total output of the country, there is being worked by agreement to-day, and has been worked during the last three years by agreement between the parties, not eight hours but seven and a-half hours, which is the length of hours stated in this Bill, and one argument for maintaining this Clause intact has been, that over the whole of that area producing 100,000,000 tons of coal, whatever you do by this Bill, you are not going to make the difference of a fraction in the hours worked over the whole of that area. We have also been told that seven and three-quarter hours or seven hours 40 minutes were being worked in other districts and not the full eight hours—[Interruption.]

Mr. D. GRAHAM: I know, and you do not.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No doubt when the hon. Gentleman intervenes in the debate he will tell us at how many collieries in those four counties more than seven and a-half hours are being worked, and perhaps he will cite his authority for so saying. If more than seven and a-half hours were being worked in defiance of the agreement the first people to take exception to it would be the officials of the local union. If it is a fact that these are the number of hours being worked, it is idle for the hon. Gentleman to come down to the House and say that if you put in a permissive Clause of this kind, everybody will be forced to work exactly the same amount. The argument will not hold water for a moment. The hon. Gentleman says that you must not pass this proposal, because there will be differences as between districts, though a very short time afterwards he said that differences in these districts there must be. There are differences in districts to-day. He will, no doubt, correct me if I am wrong, but his whole argument—and I am within the recollection of the House
—was that you must not have these district differences, and that if you have these district differences, one set of hours being worked in one district and another set of hours being worked in another, it will lead to inequalities and difficulties. That is his argument, if it means anything.
You have those differences to-day. You have those differences inevitably thrust upon you in this industry by physical differences which you cannot overcome, whatever you do. In one district there is great difficulty in working the coal, and in another district the seams are easier to work. If that was not so the ascertainment for the districts would be the same. That being the case, and having these physical difficulties which no amount of legislation can possibly overcome, the only question which the hon. Member has to decide is this, is he arbitrarily going to say, "I will insist on having absolutely the same hours day by day in every pit in this country"? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] Well, then, it must inevitably follow that if you do that you must have a greater differentiation in wages than would otherwise be the case. That inevitably must be so. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have it now!"] Yes, you have differences in wages to-day, but you will have them much more in the future if you adopt this method. If you have a district where it is far more costly to work the coal and where the situation is physically more difficult than in another district, then if you force exactly the same hours day by day upon that district that you force upon another district, you are bound to have a greater differentiation in wages. That stands to reason. When the President of the Board of Trade introduced this Bill he pointed out that if you were to have this flat rate of seven and a-half hours it would mean a considerable increase in working costs. He cited a figure of 1s. 6d. His exact words were:
We will say that there will be 1s. 6d. a ton extra cost on production relating to this reduction of one-half hour, although this is a high figure and one which has been challenged in many responsible quarters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1929; col. 1271, Vol. 233.]
This flat rate reduction of hours is inevitably going to add very considerably to the cost of getting the coal. It is, I
think, also common ground that the length of hours has a very direct ratio effect on the cost of production. The figures which the Board of Trade publish quarter by quarter show that the difference between an eight-hour day and a seven-hour day in costs other than wages was 2s. 9d. over the whole country and 3s. 10d. in South Wales. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that there must be an increase in working costs, and if you insist upon a flat seven and a-half hours and allow no spread-over, then the increase in cost is going to be higher than would be the case if the spread-over was allowed. I do not think anyone will deny that. If that was not true, then no coalowner would ever propose to operate this Clause and no miner would ever dream of agreeing to it.
The sole argument which has been advanced against our adopting the Lords Amendment is because the miners' Members in this House decline to accept it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] That argument was used by the President of the Board of Trade. I put two points in answer to that. The public have an interest in this matter as well as the miners and the Members of Parliament who represent the miners. That argument will be more convincingly addressed to this House if it seeks to justify the general merits of the case than when it is addressed to us in the form that a certain section of Members of this House are not in favour of it and that, therefore, we are not to pass it. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal was a great deal nearer the truth than the Secretary for Mines. The Lord Privy Seal said that the miners will not have this agreement; the Secretary for Mines said that the miners will have it forced upon them. I agree with the Lord Privy Seal.

Mr. SHINWELL: It is a very small point, but for the sake of greater accuracy I should like to correct the right hon. Member. What I said was that the miners might be compelled to accept it because of economic pressure.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is not much difference. I said that the hon. Member said that the miners would be compelled to accept it. He says that his remark was that the miners might be compelled to accept it. I will take his
words. I think the Lord Privy Seal was much nearer the truth when he said that if the miners do not want this provision they will not have it. If that is so, there can be no possible harm in putting it in the Bill. Unless the miners in the district decide that it is in their interests the new Clause cannot conceivably operate. All this talk about compulsion is sheer nonsense.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Hartshorn): Will the right hon. Gentleman quote what I said?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think I have misquoted the right hon. Gentleman. What he said was:
The miners' national executive have unanimously decided against the spread-over, and at every meeting of miners which I have addressed in the country, the miners have been absolutely united. If the case were put to the miners of this country, there would not be one miner in the land who would support the spread-over."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1930; col. 2337, Vol. 239.]
I do not think I misquoted the right hon. Gentleman. I paraphrased his words. If that is the position, then this Clause will not operate and the compulsion is all the other way. Instead of saying that for all time there shall be a flat rate of seven and a-half hours a day, whatever happens, and that the parties shall not be entitled, even if they desire it, to average out, we say that if the parties find, in frank negotiations and facing up to the economic situation, which Heaven knows is not too easy in this country, that it may be better business for them, for the trade and for the country generally, to agree to an aggregate which gives them seven and a-half hours there should be power to agree to such a proposal. Really, it is nonsense to call that compulsion. It is a very reasonable thing to allow to the parties such a freedom of negotiation, which in a few months' time, it may very well be, both parties in the industry will anxiously seek to have.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, particularly with reference to Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, of our experience from 1926 up to the present time. When the 1926 Act was being passed through this House we were informed that the words were merely permissive. It was
an abuse of the English language, for two-thirds of the miners were informed by the colliery proprietors that they would be permitted to return to work only on an eight hours day, plus one winding time. The result has been that during the three years that have passed since then two-thirds of the miners have been obliged to work eight hours per day, plus one winding time, which in some collieries in Yorkshire amounts to one hour and 10 minutes each day. This hour and 10 minutes on the seven and a-half hours means, in fact, that some men in South Yorkshire collieries are down the pits to-day for eight hours and 40 minutes.
While it may be true that in four counties the seven and a-half hours' day was negotiated in 1926, the Yorkshire miners have had to pay the price for having had miners in other counties working for half-an-hour each day longer than they themselves were working. For over three years miners in the three or four counties referred to have been on the minimum wage and they have never once risen beyond the minimum wage. It is true that they have exceeded their daily output per person by approximately 20 per cent. in spite of the increase of only half-an-hour each day, but no sort of benefit has been returned to the miner in any way. The right hon. Gentleman oppossite must know, as hon. Members on the Labour benches certainly know well, that as a result of the changed conditions in various counties the Yorkshire mine workers have been threatened time and time again that unless hours were equalised county by county there would be only two alternatives—either the minimum would have to be reduced or the hours of the Yorkshire miners would have to be increased. The tendency would be upwards instead of downwards. The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that different kinds of seams, involving different conditions occur in various areas. Every Member of the House knows that the natural conditions vary, not only from county to county but from pit to pit.
This seems to me, however, to be a question, not so much of the hours which miners ought to work in Derbyshire, in South Wales, in Scotland, in Durham, or elsewhere, or of the hours which ought to be worked in this colliery compared with
that colliery, but a question of what is the fair thing and how many hours ought any miner be compelled to work in the bowels of the earth. The right hon. Gentleman's arguments would lead one to believe that if one miner is working on a six-foot seam of coal, where the output per person may be six or seven or eight tons per day, that miner ought to work so many hours, while the unfortunate mortal who happens to be, for the time being, working on a two-foot seam, ought probably to work 16 hours a day. The suggestion that the miners would have power to negotiate a settlement and that there would have to be a certain element of agreement before this permissive spread-over would operate, only leads one to the conclusion that while the right hon. Gentleman may have a good deal of theoretical knowledge about the mining industry, he has no practical knowledge of the wages conditions or the working conditions of the men engaged in and about the collieries of this country. But the right hon. Gentleman must know what is happening at this moment in all parts of the country. The weekly figures of the Ministry of Labour will show the number of disputes which are taking place, and the right hon. Gentleman will find from those figures that no single week passes without a certain number of collieries in various parts of the country demanding wage reductions from the miners and stoppages and dislocation result from these demands.
If individual colliery companies threaten the men that unless they accept a 10 per cent. reduction there will be no alternative but to close down the mine, then, quite clearly, the men in those circumstances are going to consider their whole future before they turn down any suggestion which is made to them. The same thing could apply to a county and the same thing has applied to counties at various periods in the last 20 or 30 years. The threat of a reduction of wages with the alternative of the closing down of the pit places the worker in a very unenviable and unfair position. We dealt with this question on the Committee stage of the Bill and on the Report stage of the Bill. We dealt with it again when the Bill was last returned from the House of Lords. We are now dealing with it for the fourth time. It is known
that 100 per cent. of the mine workers are opposed to this spread-over and all that it implies, and one would imagine that, under our democratic institutions, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would at last be guided by men who have lived their lives in the industry, men who have not only seen the unfairness that prevails when the bargaining is based upon poverty and destitution, but who have suffered from the inequality of the bargaining.
I suggest that the mining industry has to be regarded not as one existing in certain watertight compartments, but more and more in the future as one great unit. The human side of the industry has to be considered more than has been the case in the past, and we have to recognise that, while wages and hours of labour are conditions that must be determined by mutual agreement, we must no longer permit the sinner to control the saint, we must no longer permit one county to debase conditions in another county, any more than we must permit either France, Belgium, Germany, or any other country to debase our own conditions. We want at least fair play in all parts of the mining areas, and I suggest to hon. and right hon. Members opposite, who have expressed themselves so frequently on this question, that now at long last they ought to support the contention of the practical miner and of the Government, and let their friends in the other place understand that we are not going to tolerate their interference.

Major COLVILLE: I want to put one problem to the President of the Board of Trade. Does he honestly believe that the hours in all the mines in Great Britain, in every district, can be reduced and fixed at a maximum flat rate of seven and a-half hours without at any rate the grave risk—I put it no higher—of loss of trade and considerable loss of earnings in some of those districts? I put that problem, to him. If he thinks there is even that risk, would he not be well advised to leave this machinery, whereby in certain circumstances that risk might be avoided? I ask that question for this reason, that since the time when this Bill was introduced there has been a change in the industrial position of this country. Trade has definitely become
worse. There are 500,000 more unemployed to-day than when he introduced this Bill into the House, and I say, in all earnestness, that he must remember that his optimism in regard to his marketing scheme may be less justified to-day than it was at that time. There is only one possible way in which he can avoid a considerable reduction of earnings in certain districts, and hon. Members opposite know it quite well, and that is by raising the price of coal by his marketing scheme.
Let me take the area which I know best, namely, Scotland. The results for January, February and March, in Scotland, show a credit balance of 7d., but the results for April show a debit of 0.7d. If in that district there is an addition to the costs and no alternative such as we suggest here to avoid that addition, how is he going to meet it and avoid considerable reductions in the earnings of the men in Scotland? The market for coal in Scotland is as follows: 30 per cent. is export, and he will have a difficulty in getting an increase there under present conditions. The Minister of Mines himself has told us of the bid that is being made to capture Great Britain's export trade in coal. Russia is sending to Canada huge quantities of anthracite that used to be sent from Scotland. Last year the exports from Canada of Russian anthracite were 100,000 tons, but this year at the present rate they will be nearer 250,000 tons, and that is just an instance of the endeavour that is being made to capture our export trade.
As I say, the market in Scotland is 30 per cent. export, and then there is 10 per cent. bunker coal—and there will be a difficulty in getting an increased price there—and 12 to 15 per cent. goes to the heavy industries. I speak with some sympathy and knowledge of the difficulties in getting an increased price in those industries, which are more hard hit than the coal trade at the present time. You are left in that typical district with 45 per cent. of the total markets out of which you must screw the remainder of the price if you are to avoid a big drop in the wages of the men in Scotland. I think it should be known that if some loophole and machinery is not left whereby such a catastrophe can be avoided, if it does
come about, then it is the Labour party and the mining Members who have brought it about. What is it that is asked? It is quite a reasonable thing. Last time it was in the form that if an agreement was come to at any one coal pit, an arrangement would be arrived at. Now it is if agreement is come to through the accredited representatives of the industry in the district itself. That is a change, and surely that change alone should be sufficient for hon. Members opposite to reconsider their attitude on this occasion. In the speech of the present Lord Privy Seal, on that last occasion when this matter was before the House, he used these words:
Do not let us have this pretence that you are supporting something in the interests of the miners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1930; col. 2339, Vol. 239.]
As far as the exporting districts are concerned, I could give figures of several districts showing how the margin in the last few months had gone down. In summer time, of course, the profits are not so good, but in every district it has come down to such a margin that I say, with confidence, there is not a sufficient balance for a reduction of hours without a grave risk of a reduction in the earnings of the men.

Mr. COCKS: Will the hon. and gallant Member give the wages of the men at present?

Major COLVILLE: I do not carry all the figures in my head, but I could get them for the hon. Member. These wages stand in very grave danger at present of being considerably reduced if this Measure is passed without Amendment. In every district where there are representatives of industry to treat on these matters, we should be doing wrong if we did not give them an opportunity, if they so desire, of coming forward and making a proposal to avoid such a disaster in those districts.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken with an intimate knowledge of the condition of the industry has raised a number of interesting points, and no doubt many hon. Members would be tempted to take them up, but I do not think that we should raise at this stage all the controversies in the field which he has covered. This matter has been debated very fully, and
I think it is unnecessary to go into many details. For my own part, I only say that we on these benches at every stage of this Bill have supported the Government with regard to hours. We did so on the Second Reading, throughout the Committee stage, on the Report stage and on the Third Reading. The reason for that course has been very fully stated on those various occasions, and I would only add a word in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister), who advanced the new and somewhat strange argument that because the economic and natural geological conditions of districts differed, therefore the law should differentiate with regard to the hours of miners. That matter was discussed and settled more than 20 years ago by the Act of 1909, and although a particular district is at liberty to fix lower hours within the legal maximum if it chooses, as far as Parliament is concerned it has always refused to differentiate in the manner suggested. When a previous Amendment came from the House of Lords, the same in purpose as this but in a slightly different form, we voted against it. The right hon. Member for Hendon this evening most, earnestly appealed to us to adopt the same attitude now as that which we did on a previous occasion. I feel sure that we shall have his approval and his applause when we do so on this occasion.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I am not certain that the House will be very anxious to be guided by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). In the course of these debates, he has been very anxious to instruct the coal masters of this country as to how to conduct their business, and I am not sure that they have been very ready to welcome his instruction. They would readily admit, I am sure, although I am not one of them, that the right hon. Gentleman is a very good adviser on matters of politics, but, after all, they think that they know their business, and they cannot turn round upon their own businesses just as quickly as the right hon. Gentleman turns round in matters of politics. On Second Reading, he advised the House that there could be no possible answer to various other trades in this country if this Bill, which he regarded as a disaster to the country, were once passed. Now he appears
to-night to tell us in the last stage of these proceedings that we had better adopt this particular view of the Government, because it happens to be the only one upon which he has been consistent. The fact of the right hon. Gentleman's consistency does not impress me in the slightest, because I know that that consistency would disappear if by any chance he saw any political advantage by taking the opposite view. [Interruption.]
Upon the merits of this Amendment, I would venture to make an appeal to the House. As I see the situation in this country at the present time, it is one of extreme gravity, and any addition to the costs of the industries of this country can only have a very serious result upon our prospects in the future. [Interruption.] What is the situation with regard to the coal trade? It is quite certain, and it has been repeatedly admitted by the President of the Board of Trade, that the reduction of hours must add to the cost of coal. I should like to ask the House to view this increased cost from two aspects. [Interruption.] No amount of interruption will stop me. I do not appeal for any special courtesy—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed with his speech.

11.0. p.m.

Sir R. HORNE: The two points of view I venture to present to the House are these. I should be very glad if I could adopt the view of the hon. Member for Yorkshire, who speaks with great knowledge upon this subject, that we must not be unduly affected by what is done on the Continent of Europe. We have to realize that this country, if it is to live, has got to export coal, and that it cannot export coal to the markets of the world unless it can export it at prices which will compete with those of Germany, Belgium, and other countries. Therefore, an addition to the price of coal, as the President of the Board of Trade readily admitted, will affect us in those markets, and will produce unemployment in this country. Let me take the home position. If we increase the price of coal in this country we adversely affect every industry which uses coal, and we all know how depressed the great mass
of our industries are at the present time. People talk about food taxes. Coal is the food of industry, and, if we increase the price of coal, to that extent we depress industry and create unemployment in this country.
Here is a project which everyone throughout the coalfields agrees will at least mitigate the extent of the increase in the price of coal. Are we not ready to accept something of that kind in order to ease our situation? Is it true—from my own knowledge I do not believe it is—that the men throughout the coalfields reject the idea which is now being presented? From such information as I am able to glean there are masses of men who would prefer some such scheme as this to any reduction in wages. If the alternative is as between a reduction of wages and this spread-over in the hours of labour, is it, not clear that the country would get a great benefit by adopting such a principle as this? I have no right to make any special appeal to Members of this House. All I can say for myself is that I am deeply interested in the prosperity of this country and am gravely disturbed about our present position. Whatever anyone may say, there is no question that we can only succeed in getting out of the morass in which we are if we all work together for the welfare of the country, and I appeal to the House not to reject a proposal which will ease a situation which is becoming very difficult and which, if adopted, will give benefit to every trade and industry.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: The Amendment has returned to us on this occassion in a different form from that in which it came back from the other place last time. The arguments are not quite new. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) taunted the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) with his political agility. Agility is at least a sign of life. The arguments we have heard from the right hon. Member for Hillhead would suggest that he died before the War. Exactly the same arguments are advanced in support of this Amendment as we have had against every Measure brought before this House to improve the condition of the working classes. He said that unless this Amendment
is adopted the export trade of the country in coal will be so injured that our general prosperity must suffer. That is not new. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is true!"] As a matter of fact the working class standards of living have been built up by ignoring that apparent truth.
The ex-President of the Board of Trade said that the real merit of an Amendment of this kind consisted in the fact that it was permissive and that the coal-owners could come to an agreement as to the spread-over. If the permissive character of this Amendment is its principal merit, why should the House discuss hours of labour for the miners at all. Improvements in the conditions of the working classes and limitations of hours of labour have resulted from the efforts not only of members of the Labour party, but of members of the party opposite who have recognised that they could not leave the meting out of justice to the workers to the caprice of the employers, and consequently political protection had to be sought for the protection of labour. If we accepted the basis upon which this Amendment is framed all the legislation which this House has passed regulating the hours of labour could be swept away, and we could leave all these matters to be settled between employers of labour and the workers. No doubt hon. Members opposite may say "that is a consummation devoutly to be wished," but we on this side of the House take an opposite view. With all our powerful economic associations we are not powerful enough to obtain the conditions of labour to which the workers are justly entitled.
We are here to protect the worker and we are not going to miss this opportunity of doing so. The miners have stated more than once that if this spread-over becomes part of the Bill they would rather not have the Bill than have it with the spread-over. That point has been clearly put and that is our position. If an agreement between the miners' representatives and the mineowners be the basis of implementing this Amendment, one would imagine that an agreement of that kind would be come to between two equals in the industry—that the miners would have equal opportunities in the industry with the coalowners. I want to say in fairness to my right hon. Friend that I believe that in deceiving us he has
also successfully deceived himself, and he believes it is possible for an equitable arrangement to be arrived at. The coalowners with whom it is assumed that miners will be able to negotiate through their representatives are, at the present time, doing their utmost to destroy the very organisations with whom he suggests they will have to negotiate under this Amendment.
There is the law of the land, and I submit that an innovation is being made. The law says that the Miners' Federation of Great Britain shall be given in the mining industry equal opportunity with the coalowners to organise itself; and now the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the miners' representatives fixing agreements to be given statutory force. We have got away from the tradition of our legislation. We have recognised the existence of a trade union, and a trade union which arranges an agreement as to hours which is to be given statutory effect; and yet the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, ever since 1926, have attempted to destroy the organisation which he now says ought to exist to negotiate upon hours of labour in the mining industry. I submit that here we have a piece of chicanery from the Front Bench opposite.
It does not do the House of Commons justice that, after having argued this piece of industrial legislation, we should now be compelled to go over exactly the same ground because a number of people have come together for the first time in a few years in the other House and have discussed this piece of legislation. There is nothing which is undermining the prestige of the House of Commons in the country more than the right which our Constitution confers upon a number of metaphysicians in the other Chamber to discuss a piece of industrial legislation which concerns an industry about which most of them know nothing at all. Hon. Members on the other side of this House cannot have had much experience of it except from the upholstered end, but the people in the other House have had no experience of it at all, and I want to suggest to this House that, if a piece of industrial legislation is going to be jeopardised after the House of Commons has considered it for months, because a number of people in the other House have met to discuss it and to thwart the wishes of the elected representatives
of the people, we on this side of the House at least feel that there is some reason for our being sent here by the people. I admit the contempt that they have for the people, but I do say that now, at this stage, we should make it perfectly clear to the country that we are not going to allow a piece of industrial legislation to be held up by a number of people who, having no experience of industry at all, have become simply the last trench in reaction, and are simply defending in the other place the Tories in this House who have failed to confer a measure of justice upon the miners.

Mr. MOND: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has referred to the industrial experience of those on this side of the House and in another place, but that reference comes very curiously from the benches opposite. I fail to understand what industrial experience hon. Members on those benches have. I do not know that many of them have had to take many decisions in the running of industry, or in the paying or providing of wages, or that they are accustomed to being under the obligation of maintaining the great industries of this country. On the other hand, in another place there is, perhaps, a larger aggregation of political and industrial experience than in any other body.
As a matter of fact, what we have to face to-night is that hon. Members opposite, if they are successful in resisting the Amendment are going to put on the dole a very large number of miners who would otherwise be earning good wages. They are going to close pit after pit. They are going to throw out of work hundreds and thousands of men and they are going to see their families in great distress, and the answer to that is the kind of rhetoric and eloquence to which we have just listened, dealing with nothing at all except technical questions, ignoring all the essential and fundamental economic facts of this and other industries. As a matter of fact hon. Members opposite do not represent the miners of the country. It is not the miners who are objecting to the spread-over. It is only the miners' Members. When they go back to their constituencies and face the men who have been thrown out of work by their action and see the pits that have been closed
down by their obstinacy, they will not find themselves quite as popular as they imagine. I will make one appeal before we divide. Let us try to face these problems in a more practical manner and not be so concerned with the technical details of this or the other way of making an agreement. We all know that the Amendment is vital to the maintenance

of the industry. What the future may bring forth in another year we can then discuss. The Amendment ought most certainly to be carried.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 238.

Division No. 427.]
AYES.
[11.17 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Egan, W. H.
Lawrence, Susan


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Elmley, Viscount
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lawson, John James


Alpass, J. H.
Foot, Isaac
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Ammon, Charles George
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Leach, W.


Angell, Norman.
Freeman, Peter
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Arnott, John
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Aske, Sir Robert
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gibbins, Joseph
Lindley, Fred W.


Ayles, Walter
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gill, T. H.
Logan, David Gilbert


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gillett, George M.
Longbottom, A. W.


Barnes, Alfred John
Glassey, A. E.
Longden, F.


Barr, James
Gossling, A. G.
Lowth, Thomas


Batey, Joseph
Gould, F.
Lunn, William


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Bellamy, Albert
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Granville, E.
McElwee, A.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gray, Milner
McEntee, V. L.


Benson, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McKinlay, A.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
MacLaren, Andrew


Blindell, James
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Groves, Thomas E.
McShane, John James


Bowen, J. W.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mansfield, W.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Marcus, M.


Bromfield, William
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Markham, S. F.


Brooke, W.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Marley, J.


Brothers, M.
Harbord, A.
Marshall, Fred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hardie, George D.
Mathers, George


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Harris, Percy A.
Matters, L. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Maxton, James


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Messer, Fred


Buchanan, G.
Haycock, A. W.
Middleton, G.


Burgess, F. G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Millar, J. D.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mills, J. E.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Herriotts, J.
Milner, Major J.


Cameron, A. G.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Montague, Frederick


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hoffman, P. C.
Morley, Ralph


Charleton, H. C.
Hollins, A.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Chater, Daniel
Hopkin, Daniel
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Church, Major A. G.
Horrabin, J. F.
Mort, D. L.


Clarke, J. S.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Moses, J. J. H.


Cluse, W. S.
Isaacs, George
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Muff, G.


Compton, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas
Muggeridge, H. T.


Cove, William G.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Murnin, Hugh


Daggar, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)
Naylor, T. E.


Dallas, George
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Oldfield, J. R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Day, Harry
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kelly, W. T.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Dickson, T.
Kennedy, Thomas
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Palin, John Henry


Dukes, C.
Kinley, J.
Paling, Wilfrid


Duncan, Charles
Kirkwood, D.
Palmer, E. T.


Ede, James Chuter
Lang, Gordon
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Edge, Sir William
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Perry, S. F.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lathan, G.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Shinwell, E.
Vaughan, D. J.


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Viant, S. P.


Potts, John S.
Simmons, C. J.
Walkden, A. G.


Price, M. P.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Walker, J.


Pybus, Percy John
Sinkinson, George
Wallace, H. W.


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Sitch, Charles H.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Rathbone, Eleanor
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Watkins, F. C.


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Richards, R.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wellock, Wilfred


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Ritson, J.
Snell, Harry
West, F. R.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Westwood, Joseph


Romeril, H. G.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
White, H. G.


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Sorensen, R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Rowson, Guy
Stamford, Thomas W.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Stephen, Campbell
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sanders, W. S.
Strauss, G. R.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Sandham, E.
Sullivan, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sawyer, G. F.
Sutton, J. E.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Scott, James
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Scrymgeour, E.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Scurr, John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wise, E. F.


Sexton, James
Thurtle, Ernest
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Toole, Joseph
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Sherwood, G. H.
Tout, W. J.



Shield, George William
Townend, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson.


Shillaker, J. F.
Turner, B.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Christie, J. A.
Gower, Sir Robert


Albery, Irving James
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Colfox, Major William Philip
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Colman, N. C. D.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Astor, Viscountess
Colville, Major D. J.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Atholl, Duchess of
Courtauid, Major J. S.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Atkinson, C.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hammersley, S. S.


Balniel, Lord
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hanbury, C.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Beaumont, M. W.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hartington, Marquess of


Berry, Sir George
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Haslam, Henry C.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bourne, captain Robert Croft
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Boyce, H. L.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bracken, B.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Brass, Captain Sir William
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurd, Percy A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
England, Colonel A.
Iveagh, Countess of


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Buchan, John
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Ferguson, Sir John
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Butler, R. A.
Fermoy, Lord
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fielden, E. B.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Carver, Major W. H.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Locker, Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lymington, Viscount


Chapman, Sir S.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
McConnell, Sir Joseph




Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Macquisten, F. A.
Purbrick, R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Ramsbotham, H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Tinne, J. A.


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Remer, John R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Marjoribanks, E. C.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Train, J.


Meller, R. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Mond, Hon. Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Salmon, Major I.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Wells, Sydney R.


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Savery, S. S.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Muirhead, A. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Skelton, A. N.
Withers, Sir John James


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Womersley, W. J.


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Somerset, Thomas
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


O'Neill, Sir H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)



Peake, Capt. Osbert
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Penny, Sir George
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Sir Frederick Thomson.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

CLAUSE 18.—(Interpretation.)

Message from the Lords:

They have made the following consequential Amendment to the Bill:

Page 23, line 40, leave out "Part IV" and insert "Parts III and IV."

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Shinwell.]

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.

Committee nominated of Mr. William Graham, Mr. Shinwell, Mr. Hayes, Commodore King, and Mr. Ernest Brown.

Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. W. Graham.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1929.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Local Government (Soot-land) Act, 1929, entitled the Local Government (Electors under the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913) Order (Scotland), 1930, which was presented on the 2nd day of June, 1930, be approved.—[Mr. Johnston.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.